Jeffery Basil-Samms v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERY BASIL-SAMMS,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70413
Agency No. A078-534-919
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jeffery Basil-Samms, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70413
reopen, and we review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Basil-
Samms’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was
filed 13 years after the agency’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and where the BIA had previously denied Basil-Samms’s first motion to reopen
and rescind his in absentia removal order based on lack of notice, see 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (“[a]n alien may only file one motion” to reopen
and rescind an in absentia removal order); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
To the extent Basil Samms seeks review of the BIA’s August 2014 order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his first motion to
reopen, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Basil-Samms’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --