United States v. 2020-04-13 | 18-70375 | REYNA VALENCIA NAVA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNA A. VALENCIA NAVA; NORMA
E. VALENCIA NAVA,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70375

Agency Nos. A075-256-177
A075-256-178

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Reyna A. Valencia Nava and Norma E. Valencia Nava, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

*
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 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-70375
reopen and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581
(9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 14 years after their final
administrative decision, and petitioners did not show they qualify for any
exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen
must be filed no later than 90 days after the date of the final administrative
decision); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (listing exceptions to the filing deadline).
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) does not list an
exception to the filing deadline.
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA provided sufficient reasoning in
declining to reopen sua sponte. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (the court can review
BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of
reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error);
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is
merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.