Kenneth I. Carcamo Molina v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH I. CARCAMO MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70803
Agency No. A028-949-407
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth I. Carcamo Molina, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and
* 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
OCT 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70803
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carcamo Molina’s third
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed over 10 years
after the order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Carcamo Molina has not established changed country
conditions in Nicaragua to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline, see
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
996 (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that
conditions in country of nationality had changed).
To the extent Carcamo Molina challenges the agency’s determination that he
did not warrant sua sponte reopening, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-824 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575,
588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions
denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning
behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
Because we have determined that Carcamo Molina failed to establish
changed country conditions in Nicaragua, we do not need to reach Carcamo

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70803
Molina’s contentions regarding the underlying merits of his claims. See Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
The motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. The temporary stay of
removal remains in effect until issuance of the mandate or further order of the
court.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --