Angelina Loya-Martinez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELINA LOYA-MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72378
Agency No. A095-799-284
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Angelina Loya-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
* 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
APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72378
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported Loya-Martinez’s contention that the BIA’s
decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte was premised on an erroneous or
incomplete assessment of the applicable law on provisional unlawful presence
waivers. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). In the absence of any legal or constitutional error,
we lack further jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court’s
jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is limited to
reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error).
We do not reach Loya-Martinez’s contentions regarding the IJ’s decision
because the BIA wrote its own decision. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1043
(9th Cir. 2009) (the court reviews only the BIA decision if the BIA wrote its own
decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is
limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --