Emilio Aguirre v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIO AGUIRRE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72564
Agency No. A074-804-434
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Emilio Aguirre, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 Aguirre’s fifth motion to
reopen, filed over seven years after his order of removal became final, as time- and
number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). Nor has Aguirre
established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre’s asylum claim, where he failed to
exhaust the claim before the agency in his fifth motion to reopen. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also 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).
Aguirre’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
To the extent Aguirre seeks to supplement the administrative record, any
such request is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (limiting review to “the
administrative record on which the order of removal is based”).
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
10-72564 2

-- 2 of 2 --