Angela Renderos-Abrego v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELA RENDEROS-ABREGO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70193
Agency No. A099-525-181
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Angela Renderos-Abrego, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to 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 reopen.
* 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 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70193
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Renderos-Abrego’s second
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where she failed to establish that
she qualified for an exception to the time and number bars. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1), (3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief to warrant reopening
based on changed country conditions).
To the extent that Renderos-Abrego challenges the BIA’s underlying
dismissal order and its denial of her first motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to
consider her arguments because this petition for review was filed more than 30
days after those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review
must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”);
see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is
“mandatory and jurisdictional”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening,
where Renderos-Abrego has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See 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 16-70193
We also lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of Renderos-Abrego’s
request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012) (order).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, in part; DISMISSED, in part.

-- 3 of 3 --