Eduardo Antonio Mata- Mendoza v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO ANTONIO MATA-
MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70393
Agency No. A074-374-815
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Antonio Mata-Mendoza, 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 proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
FILED
DEC 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mata-Mendoza’s motion
to reopen as untimely where it was filed fifteen years after his deportation order
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1), and Mata-Mendoza failed to
show the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling of the filing deadline is available to a
petitioner who establishes that he was prevented from filing because of deception,
fraud or error, and acted with due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Mata-Mendoza’s contentions that the agency did not state the relevant
factors or apply the correct legal standard in evaluating his motion to reopen is not
supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010).
To the extent Mata-Mendoza now claims notice of his hearing was not
proper, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
14-70393 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision declining to exercise its
sua sponte authority to reopen. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Mata-Mendoza’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-70393 3

-- 3 of 3 --