RICARDO MEJIA SORIANO V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-73738 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO MEJIA SORIANO, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73738 Agency No. A206-407-141 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Mejia Soriano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d * 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). 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mejia Soriano’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over eleven months after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mejia Soriano failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia Soriano’s contentions challenging the BIA’s October 15, 2014, order because Mejia Soriano did not petition for review of that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73738

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.