MARCELINO SEGUNDO-SANCHEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-71367 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCELINO SEGUNDO-SANCHEZ, AKA Marcelino Sanchez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-71367 Agency No. A200-248-313 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. * 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). 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Segundo-Sanchez’s untimely motion to reopen where he failed to establish that he qualified for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion where motion to reopen did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief). We lack jurisdiction to consider Segundo-Sanchez’s contention regarding the harm he fears as a person with a nexus to America who will be targeted by cartels because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We reject Segundo-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA did not properly evaluate all of his evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-71367

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.