JAVIER BAUTISTA-DELACRUZ V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 15-73564 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER BAUTISTA-DELACRUZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73564 Agency No. A071-594-601 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 17, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,** Judge. Javier Bautista-Delacruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bautista-Delacruz’s motion as untimely because he failed to offer any evidence of country conditions in Mexico at the time of his initial deportation proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). As a result, the BIA could not conduct the necessary comparison between evidence presented on the current motion, and evidence of conditions in existence at the time of the original hearing. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016); Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). 2. The BIA determined that Bautista-Delacruz had not shown an “exceptional circumstance” warranting sua sponte reopening. The BIA’s decision of whether to exercise its sua sponte authority is not subject to judicial review. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1158–59 (9th Cir. 2002). DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2

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.