VALENTINA ONOUFRIENKO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-71887 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALENTINA ALEXANDROVNA ONOUFRIENKO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-71887 Agency No. A074-809-017 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Valentina Alexandrovna Onoufrienko, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a * 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). motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Onoufrienko’s motion to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion nearly 16 years after her final order of deportation and failed to show she qualifies for any exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Onoufrienko’s contention that the agency erred in denying sua sponte reopening for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[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.”). Onoufrienko’s contention that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence in deciding her motion is not supported by the record. The BIA provided sufficient reasoning and detail in its decision denying the motion to reopen, indicating that it reviewed the entire record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency does not have to write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien must overcome presumption that BIA did review all evidence where the BIA plainly stated it reviewed the record). The BIA was not required to address whether she is prima 2 18-71887 facie eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) (“The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 18-71887
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.
