Roberto Carlos Perez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO CARLOS PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73668
Agency No. A094-461-242
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Carlos Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
* 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
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73668
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 Perez’s motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred where he filed his motion more than three years after
the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Perez failed to establish
changed circumstances in El Salvador or any other qualification for a regulatory
exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at the previous hearing to
warrant reopening). Further, Perez’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his
evidence is unpersuasive where the BIA discussed the evidence Perez submitted
with his motion and explained the reasons for its decision. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990-91.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s decision not to invoke its
sua sponte authority to reopen. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA’s decision not to
invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853,
2016 WL 3741866 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016). We also lack jurisdiction to consider

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73668
Perez’s contentions challenging the BIA’s June 30, 2011 order because Perez did
not petition for review of that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227,
1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --