Ricardo Montesinos-Bonilla v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MONTESINOS-BONILLA
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70046
Agency No. A070-153-956
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.
Ricardo Montesinos-Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to
FILED
DEC 17 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 --

reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We deny Montesinos-Bonilla’s motion to take judicial notice of the new
materials he submitted for the first time in support of his opening brief. See Fisher
v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited
to the administrative record); cf. Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir.
1997) (taking judicial notice of agency’s own records that falsified the basis on
which the BIA relied).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montesinos-Bonilla’s
motion to reopen as time and number barred, where he filed his second motion
over seven years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
he failed to submit new and material evidence demonstrating a material change in
El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number
limitations for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-90 (new evidence lacked materiality). We reject
Montesinos-Bonilla’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider reports he
submitted with his motion to reopen and failed to accept as true facts stated in his
declaration. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA “adequately considered
[petitioner’s] evidence and sufficiently announced its decision”).
15-70046 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-70046 3

-- 3 of 3 --