WALTER LOPEZ-NAVARRO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72459 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER LOPEZ-NAVARRO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72459 Agency No. A092-358-227 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges Walter Lopez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. * 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). Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Navarro’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to establish any of the regulatory exceptions to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Navarro’s challenge to the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte where he fails to establish any legal or constitutional errors behind the decision. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-72459

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.