Joselyn Liseth Lemus-Quinteros v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSELYN LISETH LEMUS-QUINTEROS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71777
Agency No. A205-639-856
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Joselyn Liseth Lemus-Quinteros, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
her motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of 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).
FILED
APR 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71777
motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d
575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lemus-Quinteros’s
motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings where her challenge to the
agency’s jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is
foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack
of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the
immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
In light of this disposition, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of
sua sponte reopening, where Lemus-Quinteros has not raised a legal or
constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to
review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of
reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus-Quinteros’s contentions concerning
timeliness, changed circumstances, and prima facie eligibility because she did not
raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71777
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --