Teresa De Jesus Patino- Gonzalez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA DE JESUS PATINO-
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71761
Agency No. A095-194-152
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Teresa De Jesus Patino-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen. 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. Gonzales, 400
* 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
JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71761
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 Patino-Gonzalez’s seventh
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where she filed it more than nine
years after the order of removal became final, and she has not established that any
statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), (3).
The court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s sua sponte determination is
limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional
error, and Patino-Gonzalez has not established any error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016); De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 n. 5
(9th Cir. 2009) (denial of an application for cancellation of removal does not
implicate constitutional rights concerning family unity or child rearing).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Patino-Gonzalez’s challenges to the
agency’s underlying hardship determination, because this petition is not timely as
to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review of a final order of
removal must be filed within 30 days of that order); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review an
underlying order of removal on petition for review from the denial of a later
motion to reopen).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71761
We lack jurisdiction to consider Patino-Gonzalez’s request for prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th
Cir. 2012) (order).
We do not consider the documents that Patino-Gonzalez submitted with her
opening brief because they were not part of the administrative record. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --