Julian Fuentes Carreno v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIAN FUENTES CARRENO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73498
Agency No. A079-536-437
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Julian Fuentes Carreno, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
FILED
DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Fuentes Carreno’s motion as
untimely, where Fuentes Carreno has not established that any statutory or
regulatory exception to the filing deadline applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth exceptions to the filing limitations for
motions to reopen); cf. Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.
2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons ‘unrelated to the merits of the underlying
criminal proceedings’ may be used as a conviction in removal proceedings whereas
a conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal
proceedings may not.” (internal citation omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011);
cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[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.”).
14-73498 2

-- 2 of 3 --

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Fuentes Carreno’s remaining
contentions regarding the basis of the vacatur of his conviction or his eligibility for
cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-73498 3

-- 3 of 3 --