Opinion
No. 16-73143
07-13-2018
FILIBERTO BELLO SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A096-346-311 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Filiberto Bello Suarez, 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. 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 Bello Suarez's tenth motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than nine years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to establish any of the regulatory exceptions to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Bello Suarez's remaining contentions regarding hardship.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen sua sponte where Bello Suarez fails to establish any legal or constitutional errors behind the decision. 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.").
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bello Suarez's contention that his case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
To the extent Bello Suarez seeks review of the BIA's December 2006 order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted with Bello Suarez's opening brief. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.