Fernando Garcia Pantoja v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO GARCIA PANTOJA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71309
Agency No. A073-960-038
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Garcia Pantoja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 of 3 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo 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 agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying as untimely
Pantoja’s motion to reopen, where it was filed 14 years after issuance of his order
of deportation. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte determination is limited
to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Pantoja has not established
that the agency erred in its determination that he failed to show prima facie
eligibility for any forms of relief, including cancellation of removal and
repapering, over which the agency has jurisdiction, regardless of the IJ’s alleged
error in calling repapering a “proposal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (“A motion to
reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be
held if the motion is granted and shall . . . . be accompanied by the appropriate
application for relief and all supporting documents.”).
To the extent Pantoja seeks prosecutorial discretion before this court, we
lack jurisdiction to consider such a request. Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642
15-71309 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-71309 3

-- 3 of 3 --