Wilson Roberto Rodriguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILSON ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71685
Agency No. A074-428-331
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Wilson Roberto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily 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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71685
Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than 20 years after the
applicable deadline, and did not show the motion was subject to any exceptions to
the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4).
To the extent Rodriguez challenges the agency’s discretionary decision not
to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review this determination
absent a claim of legal or constitutional error. 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 do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time
with Rodriguez’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is
limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.
2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez’s remaining
contentions regarding eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --