RICARDO MONTESINOS-BONILLA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70046 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 17 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO MONTESINOS-BONILLA Petitioner, No. 15-70046 Agency No. A070-153-956 v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Montesinos-Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to * 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). reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny Montesinos-Bonilla’s motion to take judicial notice of the new materials he submitted for the first time in support of his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record); cf. Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 1997) (taking judicial notice of agency’s own records that falsified the basis on which the BIA relied). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montesinos-Bonilla’s motion to reopen as time and number barred, where he filed his second motion over seven years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to submit new and material evidence demonstrating a material change in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-90 (new evidence lacked materiality). We reject Montesinos-Bonilla’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider reports he submitted with his motion to reopen and failed to accept as true facts stated in his declaration. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA “adequately considered [petitioner’s] evidence and sufficiently announced its decision”). 2 15-70046 Finally, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-70046
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.
