Charles McBarango v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES MCBARANGO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73176
Agency No. A077-966-532
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.
Charles McBarango, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal 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. Gonzales,
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 --

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 McBarango’s second motion
to reopen, filed five years after his order of removal became final, as time- and
number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Contrary to McBarango’s contention, the BIA provided a reasoned
explanation for denial. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we do not reach McBarango’s
contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73176 2

-- 2 of 2 --