Hortencia Tobias De Mota v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HORTENCIA TOBIAS DE MOTA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73341
Agency No. A024-123-049
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Hortencia Tobias de Mota, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
reconsideration of its prior order denying her motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and
* 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
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-73341
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tobias de Mota’s motion to
reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order,
where she failed to establish that the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening departed
from a settled course of adjudication or involved any “incorrect legal premise.”
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)
(the court’s jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is
limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional
error).
The BIA sufficiently explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --