PASTOR VEGA-RAYO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72812 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PASTOR VEGA-RAYO, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72812 Agency No. A095-297-004 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Respondent’s request to lift the stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 25) is granted. Pastor Vega-Rayo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider * 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). and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vega-Rayo’s motion to reconsider because Vega-Rayo failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vega-Rayo’s motion to reopen because it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), and Vega-Rayo failed to demonstrate he qualified for an exception to the time and number limits for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on changed circumstances for failure to establish “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought”). We lack jurisdiction to consider VegaRayo’s contentions as to membership in a particular social because he did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen 2 14-72812 proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853, 2016 WL 3741866 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-72812
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.
