JOSE MARTINEZ-MEZA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-73177 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALONSO MARTINEZ-MEZA, Petitioner, No. 12-73177 Agency No. A088-751-155 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 21, 2015** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Jose Alonso Martinez-Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. * 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). 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 Martinez-Meza’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than one year after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and failed to establish that he warranted an exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (90day deadline does not apply when alien seeks to apply for asylum and related relief based on “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality”). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-73177

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.