Carlos Eduardo Ramos v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS EDUARDO RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71019
Agency No. A091-852-535
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Eduardo Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71019
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo constitutional
claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramos’s motion to
reopen as untimely where he filed it more than four years after his final order of
removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
The BIA did not err in determining that Ramos waived any argument that
the filing deadline should be equitably tolled where he did not sufficiently raise the
issue in his motion to reopen. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.
2004) (petitioner must sufficiently put the agency on notice as to specific issues so
that the agency has an opportunity to pass on those issues); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24
I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to the IJ are not properly
before the BIA on appeal).
Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte determination is limited to
issues of legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th
Cir. 2016). Ramos has failed to show any legal or constitutional error in the agency’s
sua sponte determination. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --