ILBIR CAMPOS-MEJIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-71586 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ILBIR CAMPOS-MEJIA, Petitioner, No. 12-71586 Agency No. A029-266-213 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 6, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL,*** Senior District Judge. Petitioner Ilbir Campos-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation. to allow him to seek special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Specifically, Campos-Mejia asked the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), which allows the BIA to “at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.” The BIA denied the motion. Campos-Mejia contends that we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial. We disagree. Because there is no judicially manageable standard for us to evaluate, “we lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte.” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002)). Campos-Mejia contends that In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (en banc), established a standard of review because it explained that the BIA will reopen proceedings sua sponte when “exceptional situations” exist. That argument was explicitly rejected in Ekimian. 303 F.3d at 1158. Petition DISMISSED.

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.