MARCELINO SEGUNDO-SANCHEZ, AKA Marcelino Sanchez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELINO SEGUNDO-SANCHEZ,
AKA Marcelino Sanchez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71367
Agency No. A200-248-313
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71367
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 of 2 --