Julio AMADOR JIMENEZ; Margarita Hernandez de Amador, Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: March 06, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Petitioners Edward C. Durant, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
In these consolidated petitions for review, Julio Amador Jimenez and Margarita Hernandez de Amador, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In 17-71317, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In 18-70413, we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not raise, and therefore waive, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen and reconsider was time- and number-barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte where petitioners do not raise a legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s denial. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reconsider because petitioners did not identify any error of fact or law in the underlying denial of their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (requiring identification of factual or legal error in the prior decision).
No. 17-71317: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 18-70413: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.