Mario Borja-Trejo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO BORJA-TREJO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-1747
Agency No.
A092-607-245
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Mario Borja-Trejo, 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.
* 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 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1747
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
reopen as untimely where it was filed over one year 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); cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (“There is no time limit on the filing
of a motion to reopen if the basis of the motion is to apply for [asylum or
withholding of removal] and is based on changed country conditions arising in the
country of nationality.”).
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte is limited to contentions of legal or constitutional error.
See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). We find no legal or
constitutional error on the face of the BIA’s decision.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --