Urbano Jimenez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
URBANO JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72898
Agency No. A088-130-567
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Urbano Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider and 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
* 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72898
reconsider and the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez’s motion to
reconsider and reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more
than 10 years after the order of removal became final and was beyond the
numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (7)(A); 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying
Jimenez’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, where he did not
establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner must demonstrate prima
facie eligibility for the relief sought). We reject as unsupported by the record
Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of his claim.
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.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72898
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --