MARIA CORZA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72921 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DEL CARMEN CORZA and RAMIRO CORZA-CERVANTES, No. 15-72921 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A075-678-322 A075-678-321 MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Maria Del Carmen Corza and Ramiro Corza-Cervantes, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ successive motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely and number-barred where it was filed nearly 11 years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2),(c)(2) and they have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contentions regarding new evidence of hardship and ineffective assistance of counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). To the extent petitioners contend that the agency should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen their case, we also lack jurisdiction to consider that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-824 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). Petitioners’ request for a stay of removal is dismissed as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. 2 15-72921

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.