Keny Elizabeth Carrillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENY ELIZABETH CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1239
Agency No.
A098-988-622
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Keny Elizabeth Carrillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider the denial of a previous motion to reopen, and denying a
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and the denial of a
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-1239
motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider
because Carrillo failed to establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
September 14, 2020 determination that her motion to reopen was untimely. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A
petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in the
BIA’s prior decision.”). We do not reach Carrillo’s contentions as to prima
facie eligibility for adjustment of status, as the BIA did not deny reconsideration
on this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Construing Carrillo’s submission of additional evidence as a motion to
reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as
untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than nine years after the
order of removal became final and was beyond the numerical limitations. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-1239
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --