Victorio Barrios Barrios v. Jefferson Sessions

691 F. App'x 502

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 30, 2017
• Docket: 15-73410
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Victorio Delfino Barrios Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion' in denying Barrios Barrios’ motion to reopen based on lack of notice where the record establishes that he was personally served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish. There was no statutory requirement that the OSC be orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)-(3) (1996);

Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barrios Barrios’ unexhausted contentions regarding irregularities in the OSC’s Certificate of Translation and Oral Notice. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider contentions not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrios Barrios’ motion to reopen to apply for asylum and related relief, where he filed it more than 17 years after the applicable deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the deadline for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003,23(b)(4)(i).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Barrios Barrios’ remaining contentions regarding membership in a particular social group or eligibility for relief.

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.