765 Fed.Appx. 349 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-72378, Loya-Martinez v. Barr

Docket Nº:17-72378
Citation:765 Fed.Appx. 349
Party Name:Angelina LOYA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel,...
Judge Panel:Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 22, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 349

765 Fed.Appx. 349 (9th Cir. 2019)

Angelina LOYA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-72378

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 22, 2019

Submitted April 17, 2019 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX9-284

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Page 350

MEMORANDUM[**]

Angelina Loya-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.

We reject as unsupported Loya-Martinez’s contention that the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte was premised on an erroneous or incomplete assessment of the applicable law on provisional unlawful presence waivers. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). In the absence of any legal or constitutional error, we lack further jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court’s jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error).

We do...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP