ONOFRE CATALAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70857 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ONOFRE CATALAN, AKA Jeff Catalan, AKA Onofre Catalan-Garcia, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70857 Agency No. A041-985-272 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Onofre Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and his fourth motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Catalan does not make any contentions regarding the BIA’s determination that he had not demonstrated any error of law or fact to warrant reconsideration or that his fourth motion to reopen was time- and number-barred and did not fall within any exception to those filing requirements. He thus waives any challenge to those determinations. 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 decision declining to reopen Catalan’s case sua sponte based on Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 576 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2009), and Catalan’s contentions that the BIA abused its discretion in doing so do not raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (court can review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-70857
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.
