JOSE M. DAVID SUAZO, AKA Jose Mario David Suazo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE M. DAVID SUAZO, AKA Jose Mario
David Suazo,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73114
Agency No. A074-985-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose M. David Suazo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen.1 Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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 David Suazo’s unopposed motion to reinstate this petition for review
(Docket Entry No. 28) is granted, and the petition is reinstated.
FILED
NOV 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-73114
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 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 David Suazo’s second
motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely where petitioner has not
established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) (only one motion to reopen allowed), (c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to
reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final removal order); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3) (exceptions).
We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)
(denial of sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and
unreviewable).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider David Suazo’s challenge to the
agency’s 2008 denial of his application for cancellation of removal because he
failed to file a timely petition for review as to that final order. See Anderson v.
Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2012).
We do not consider the materials David Suazo references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-73114
The court, in its discretion, denies the motion for appointment of pro bono
counsel (Docket Entry No. 33).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --