JULIO JIMENEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-71317 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 6 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO AMADOR JIMENEZ; MARGARITA HERNANDEZ DE AMADOR, Nos. 17-71317 18-70413 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A075-750-239 A075-750-240 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Julio Amador Jimenez and Margarita Hernandez de Amador, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In 17-71317, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In 18-70413, we deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not raise, and therefore waive, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen and reconsider was time- and number-barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte where petitioners do not raise a legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s denial. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 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 error.”). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reconsider because petitioners did not identify any error of fact or law in the underlying denial of their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (requiring 2 17-71317 & 18-70413 identification of factual or legal error in the prior decision). No. 17-71317: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. No. 18-70413: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-71317 & 18-70413
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.
