Jose Arturo Medellin-Loyola v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ARTURO MEDELLIN-LOYOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70558
Agency No. A087-530-928
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Arturo Medellin-Loyola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v.
FILED
FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Medellin-Loyola’s
motion. Construed as a motion to reconsider, the motion failed to specify any error
of fact or law in the prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to
reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or
law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).
Construed as a motion to reopen, the motion failed to establish prima facie
eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912
(9th Cir. 2010) (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima
facie case for relief).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Medellin-Loyola’s
request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d
1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent Medellin-Loyola challenges the agency’s September 16, 2013,
order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition
for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS,
315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 14-70558

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we deny the government’s motion for judicial notice of documents
outside the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Ruiz v. City of
Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th Cir. 1998) (judicial notice is
inappropriate where the facts to be noticed are not relevant to the disposition of the
issues before the court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-70558

-- 3 of 3 --