Juan Carlos Mancilla-Torres v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS MANCILLA-TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71831
Agency No. A075-265-871
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Mancilla-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision. The immigration judge had denied his motion to
* 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
DEC 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
reopen his removal proceedings and his request to reopen his removal proceedings
sua sponte. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The Board correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
Mancilla-Torres’s motion to reopen his April 2001 removal order because that
order was reinstated in May 2003. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), if “an alien has
reentered the United States illegally after having been removed . . . , under an order
of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not
subject to being reopened or reviewed.” Accordingly, a “motion to reopen a
reinstated prior removal order is barred under § 1231(a)(5).” Bravo-Bravo v.
Garland, 40 F.4th 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2022). Therefore, neither the immigration
judge nor the Board had jurisdiction to address Mancilla-Torres’s challenge to the
removal order.
The Board also determined that it lacked authority to reopen the removal
proceedings sua sponte. Because Section 1231(a)(5) provides that “an alien’s prior
removal order and proceedings are ‘not subject to being reopened, . . . the
regulation providing the [Board’s] sua sponte reopening authority cannot override
that command.’” Bravo-Bravo, 40 F.4th at 917 (quoting Rodriguez-Saragosa v.
Sessions, 904 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2018)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --