Julian Fuentes Carreno v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Julian Fuentes Carreno v. Loretta E. Lynch

672 F. App'x 705

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2016

Docket14-73498

StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 705 (Julian Fuentes Carreno v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julian Fuentes Carreno v. Loretta E. Lynch, 672 F. App'x 705 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julian Fuentes Carreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 Fuentes Carreno’s motion as untimely, where Fuentes Carreno has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth exceptions to the filing limitations for motions to reopen); cf. Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons ‘unrelated to -the merits of the underlying criminal proceed *706 ings’ may be used as a conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not.” (internal citation omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. 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”).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Fuentes Carreno’s remaining contentions regarding the basis of the vacatur of his conviction or his eligibility for cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Julian Fuentes Carreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 Fuentes Carreno’s motion as untimely, where Fuentes Carreno has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth exceptions to the filing limitations for motions to reopen); cf. Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A conviction vacated for reasons ‘unrelated to -the merits of the underlying criminal proceed *706 ings’ may be used as a conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not.” (internal citation omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. 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”).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Fuentes Carreno’s remaining contentions regarding the basis of the vacatur of his conviction or his eligibility for cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 F. App'x 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julian-fuentes-carreno-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack