United States v. 2020-04-14 | 16-70716 | ALFREDO COTZOMI QUECHOLAC V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFREDO COTZOMI QUECHOLAC,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70716

Agency No. A095-790-462

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.

Alfredo Cotzomi Quecholac, 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 part and

*
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 14 2020

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

2
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cotzomi Quecholac’s
motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 21 months after the
order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Cotzomi
Quecholac has not established changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for
the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to
produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of
nationality had changed).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. 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) (“[T]his
court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for
the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or
constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.