United States v. 2020-04-13 | 16-73932 | VICTOR MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR H. MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73932

Agency No. A036-164-011

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Victor H. Martinez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 and review de novo
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in

*
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

APR 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-73932
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Gonzalez’s motion
as untimely, where it was filed approximately three years after his final
administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Martinez-Gonzalez did not
demonstrate materially changed conditions in Mexico to qualify for the changed
county conditions exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Martinez-Gonzalez has not identified any legal error underlying the BIA’s
denial of sua sponte reopening. 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). The changes in law raised in his motion are not material
because the agency conducted a case-specific particularly serious crime analysis
and did not rely on a determination that his conviction is an aggravated felony.
We lack jurisdiction to review Martinez-Gonzalez’s unexhausted contention
that he is now eligible for cancellation of removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.