Ignacio Ramirez Zamora v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO RAMIREZ ZAMORA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1065
Agency No.
A200-262-270
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Ramirez Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1065
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez Zamora’s
motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than nine months after the
final removal order, and petitioner has not established that any statutory or
regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to
reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final removal order); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3) (listing exceptions).
We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)
(denial of sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and
unreviewable).
We do not address Ramirez Zamora’s contentions as to the merits of his
cancellation of removal claim or due process concerns related to such relief
because the BIA did not deny the motion to reopen on these grounds. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that
agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent Ramirez Zamora challenges the BIA’s underlying dismissal
order, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it was issued on
February 6, 2020, and Ramirez Zamora did not file this petition for review until
June 17, 2022. See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A
petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1065
order of removal.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --