MARIA DEL CARMEN CORZA and RAMIRO CORZA-CERVANTES v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL CARMEN CORZA and
RAMIRO CORZA-CERVANTES,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72921
Agency Nos. A075-678-322
A075-678-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Carmen Corza and Ramiro Corza-Cervantes, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by
* 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 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72921
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ successive
motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely and number-barred where it was filed
nearly 11 years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(2),(c)(2) and they have not established that any statutory or regulatory
exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contentions
regarding new evidence of hardship and ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
To the extent petitioners contend that the agency should have exercised its
sua sponte authority to reopen their case, we also lack jurisdiction to consider that
contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-824 (9th Cir.
2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
Petitioners’ request for a stay of removal is dismissed as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --