CESAR PINEDA LINARES V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-71459 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR D. PINEDA LINARES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71459 Agency No. A088-966-995 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Cesar D. Pineda Linares, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse * 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). of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Pineda Linares’s motion to reopen to apply for asylum and related relief, and special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, where he did not include with the motion any applications or supporting documentation for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Pineda Linares’s motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status as untimely, where he filed the motion more than six years after the applicable deadline, and did not show the motion was subject to any exceptions to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4). We lack jurisdiction to consider Pineda Linares’s unexhausted contentions regarding his registration under the ABC settlement agreement or his eligibility for an I-601A waiver. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). We do not consider the extra-record evidence that Pineda Linares submitted for the first time with his opening brief. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). To the extent Pineda Linares asks this court to exercise sua sponte authority 2 16-71459 to reopen proceedings, that authority rests with the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-71459
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.
