Esbin Orlando Revolorio v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESBIN ORLANDO REVOLORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70823
Agency No. A070-786-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Esbin Orlando Revolorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 2 --

and review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Revolorio’s motion to
reopen where notice was proper, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), and where Revolorio
failed to appear at his hearing and did not establish exceptional circumstances to
excuse his failure to appear, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1); cf. Romani v.
INS, 146 F.3d 737, 739 (9th Cir. 1998) (no failure to appear when petitioners were
at courtroom on time but were incorrectly told by counsel’s assistant that the
immigration judge had already ordered them deported in absentia). It follows that
Revolorio’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision whether to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Revolorio’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-70823 2

-- 2 of 2 --