Alejandro Santiago Hilario v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO SANTIAGO HILARIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-13
Agency No.
A205-711-087
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023 **
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Santiago Hilario, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion
to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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
* 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
JUL 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-13
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider
as untimely where it was filed more than four years after the final order of
removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), and petitioner has not established that
equitable tolling of the filing deadline is warranted, see Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d
1225, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2020) (no abuse of discretion in BIA’s denial of
equitable tolling).
Santiago Hilario’s contention that there was legal error in the BIA’s
determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte fails, see id. at 1234 (BIA’s
denial of sua sponte relief was not premised on legal or constitutional error),
and we otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the issue, see 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.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --