CESAR SANCHEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71670 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR MOISES SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71670 Agency No. A094-301-658 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Cesar Moises Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not provide sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to invoke the filing deadline exception, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). Sanchez’s contention that a change in law makes him eligible for asylum and thus invokes the exception to the filing deadline is unavailing. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (asserting a change of law, rather than a change in conditions in the country of removal, is an improper expansion of the exception). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Sanchez fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 1273853, 2016 WL 3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 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 2 14-71670 error.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-71670
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.
