Seth Gyamfi v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SETH GYAMFI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73770
Agency No. A024-223-643
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Seth Gyamfi, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision 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 or reconsider and review de
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964
(9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Gyamfi’s motion where, construed as a motion to reopen, it was unsupported by
material, previously unavailable evidence that could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing, and where, construed as a motion to reconsider, it
was filed beyond the thirty-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(requirements for motion to reopen); id. at (b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be
filed within thirty days of final order of removal); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen sua
sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Gyamfi’s remaining
contentions.
Because Gyamfi did not submit a proposed supplemental opening brief, as
required by the court’s August 11, 2014, order, we deny his August 8, 2014,
motion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-73770 2

-- 2 of 2 --