Julio Cesar Huerta-Carillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR HUERTA-CARILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73724
Agency No. A092-474-925
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District
Judge.
Julio Huerta-Carillo petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision denying his motion for sua sponte reopening based on a
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
fundamental change in the law. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the denial
of a sua sponte motion for reopening. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th
Cir. 2002). However, we retain jurisdiction “for the limited purpose of reviewing
the reasoning behind the decision[] for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v.
Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny Huerta-Carillo’s petition.
1. The BIA’s denial of Huerta-Carillo’s motion for sua sponte reopening
did not rest on a legal or constitutional error. The BIA found that, even assuming
there was a fundamental change in the law, the time between the change and the
filing of Huerta-Carillo’s motion was too long to justify reopening. In its analysis,
the BIA examined the time that had elapsed in prior cases of sua sponte reopening,
and determined that Huerta-Carillo’s fourteen-month delay did not warrant
reopening.
In reaching this decision, the BIA did not “misconstrue[] the parameters of its
sua sponte authority[.]” See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1237 (9th Cir. 2020).
Instead, the BIA exercised its discretion by reaching a decision based on the length
of time that Huerta-Carillo waited to bring his claim. When the BIA does so, “there
is nothing left for us to review.” Id. at 1235 (simplified). Because the BIA did not
commit any legal or constitutional error in determining that Huerta-Carillo waited
too long to bring his claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of his motion
for sua sponte reopening. Cf. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 581–82.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --