United States v. 2020-11-16 | 16-71222 | JULIO NAJERA-MEJIA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR NAJERA-MEJIA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-71222

Agency No. A073-000-124

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Julio Cesar Najera-Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 and review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321

*
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

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-71222
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Najera-Mejia’s motion to reopen is
barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). See Padilla Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079,
1085-87 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[8 U.S.C.] § 1231(a)(5) bars reopening a removal order
that has been reinstated following [a noncitizen’s] unlawful reentry into the United
States”).
To the extent Najera-Mejia’s motion falls within an exception to the bar at
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for failure to establish exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003)
(no exceptional circumstances where petitioner misunderstood the time of her
hearing).
The BIA provided sufficient reasoning in its decision. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.