Crispin Mora v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISPIN MORA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70722
Agency No. A087-002-449
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Crispin Mora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70722
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mora’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where he filed the motion more than a year after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to establish that equitable tolling
of the filing deadline was warranted due to a lack of continuance or alleged notary
fraud, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011) (The court
recognizes equitable tolling “during periods when a petitioner is prevented from
filing because of a deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence in discovering the deception, fraud or error.”).
Contrary to Mora’s contention, the BIA did not base its sua sponte
determination on the untimeliness of the motion, and we otherwise lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of sua sponte reopening. See
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,
633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we do not reach Mora’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --