Ricardo Frausto v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO FRAUSTO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70653
Agency No. A097-258-285
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Frausto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
* 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
JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70653
of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
Frausto challenges only the BIA’s decision denying sua sponte reopening.1
Our jurisdiction is limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decision[] for
legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
The record does not support Frausto’s assertions that the BIA committed such
errors. For example, there is no indication that the BIA failed to consider its own
precedent or neglected to adequately review and consider the evidence presented.
See, e.g., Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“There
is no indication that the IJ or BIA did not consider all the evidence before them.”).
We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to
exercise its authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a);
Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 He does not raise and has therefore waived any challenge to the agency’s other
bases for denying his motion, including that it was both untimely and number
barred and that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief and
protection. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not argued in opening brief deemed waived).

-- 2 of 2 --