Roberto Ibanez Navarro; Veronica Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO IBANEZ
NAVARRO; VERONICA RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-458
Agency Nos.
A079-536-614
A079-536-615
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Ibanez Navarro and Veronica Ramirez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their 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
* 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
MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-458
Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law. 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 in denying petitioners’ eleventh
motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely where petitioners have not
established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A) (only one motion to reopen allowed), (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) (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).
Petitioners’ contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over
their proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in
notice to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter
jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides
hearing information).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --