Roxana Bernal Perez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROXANA BERNAL PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73021
Agency No. A073-937-059
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Roxana Bernal Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
* 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
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73021
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bernal Perez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 11 years after the order of
removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bernal Perez has not
established changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material
evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had
changed); see also Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“the
changed country conditions exception is concerned with two points in time: the
circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioner’s previous hearing, and
those at the time of the motion to reopen.”). We do not consider the materials
Bernal Perez references in her opening brief that are not part of the administrative
record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In light
of this disposition, we do not reach Bernal Perez’s contentions as to prima facie
eligibility.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73021
for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --