BENJAMIN SANCHEZ CABRERA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73035 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENJAMIN SANCHEZ CABRERA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73035 Agency No. A095-000-389 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Benjamin Sanchez Cabrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 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). 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez Cabrera’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 10 years past the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he does not qualify for any regulatory exception or equitable tolling of the deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s 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, No. 12-73853, 2016 WL 3741866, at *10 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Sanchez Cabrera’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-73035

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.