JOSE VINICIO-GONZALEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70548 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE VINICIO-GONZALEZ, AKA William Omar Benavides, AKA William Omar Benevidas-Guevara, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70548 Agency No. A098-433-075 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Vinicio-Gonzalez, 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 (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. * 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). Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Vinicio-Gonzalez’s contention that remand is warranted under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). Vinicio-Gonzalez provides no authority to support his contention that the agency’s own regulations required sua sponte reopening of his case in order to allow the IJ to inform him of potential eligibility for adjustment of status, or to allow him to apply for that relief. We lack further jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary sua sponte determination. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court’s jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-70548
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.
