Roberto German Tepozteco- Rios v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO GERMAN TEPOZTECO-
RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71043
Agency No. A205-712-052
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Roberto German Tepozteco-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen and remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and remand for abuse of
* 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 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71043
discretion. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Tepozteco-Rios does not challenge the BIA’s denial of
his motion to reopen and remand based on his non-immigrant U visa petition. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tepozteco-Rios’s untimely
and number barred motion to reopen and remand based on changed country
conditions where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228
(9th Cir. 2016) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima
facie eligibility for the relief sought); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014)
(concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT
relief).
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71043
the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or
constitutional error.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Tepozteco-Rios’s contention that the
agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --