Javier HERNANDEZ-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: August 10, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher James Todd, Law Office of Christopher Todd, Mill Valley, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann M. Welhaf, Attorney, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Javier Hernandez-Salazar (“Hernandez-Salazar”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we need not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.
1. We review the BIA's decision to deny the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hernandez-Salazar's motion was untimely and number-barred because he failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Mexico since the time of his removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (providing that only one motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal, may be submitted unless the motion “is based on changed country conditions”). Hernandez-Salazar's motion was filed five years after his final order of removal, and the evidence he provided shows that the conditions he complains of existed at the time of his earlier hearing. We deny this portion of the petition.
2. We have jurisdiction to review BIA “decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Hernandez-Salazar challenges the BIA's refusal to reopen his case sua sponte, but does not identify any legal or constitutional error in the BIA's reasoning. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the refusal to reopen sua sponte, and we dismiss this portion of the petition.
PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
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.