Jose Soreque-Sandoval v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 13-2299 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's decision not to exercise its discretionary "sua sponte" authority to reopen removal proceedings; BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion for remand or the IJ's determination that petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2299 ___________________________ Jose Soreque-Sandoval lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 27, 2014 Filed: April 4, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Jose Soreque-Sandoval petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), upholding an immigration judge s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, and denying his request to remand his case to the immigration judge. Upon careful review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the agency s decision not to exercise its discretionary sua sponte authority to reopen the removal proceedings. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (per curiam). We further conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion either in upholding the immigration judge s determination that Soreque-Sandoval s motion to reopen was untimely, see Valencia v. Holder, 657 F.3d 745, 748-49 (8th Cir. 2011) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding denial of untimely motion to reopen), or in denying his request for a remand, see Clifton v. Holder, 598 F.3d 486, 490-93 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of request for remand is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
