ONOFRE CATALAN, AKA Jeff Catalan, AKA Onofre Catalan-Garcia v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ONOFRE CATALAN, AKA Jeff Catalan,
AKA Onofre Catalan-Garcia,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70857
Agency No. A041-985-272
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Onofre Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider
and his fourth motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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
FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70857
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Catalan does not make any contentions regarding the BIA’s determination
that he had not demonstrated any error of law or fact to warrant reconsideration or
that his fourth motion to reopen was time- and number-barred and did not fall
within any exception to those filing requirements. He thus waives any challenge to
those determinations. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are
waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision declining to reopen
Catalan’s case sua sponte based on Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 576 F.3d 1058 (9th
Cir. 2009), and Catalan’s contentions that the BIA abused its discretion in doing so
do not raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge to invoke our jurisdiction.
See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (court can review BIA
decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing
the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --