Luis Alfredo Mata-Fasardo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALFREDO MATA-FASARDO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71079
Agency No. A070-647-155
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alfredo Mata-Fasardo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his fourth
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and we
review de novo questions of law. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71079
2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mata-Fasardo’s untimely
and number-barred motion to reopen where Mata-Fasardo failed to establish
materially changed country conditions or prima facie eligibility for relief to qualify
for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3);
see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (concluding that the Board may deny a
motion to reopen for failing to meet any of the four burdens, including prima facie
eligibility, evidence of changed conditions, and that the evidence is “material”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to
reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Mata-Fasardo fails to raise a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. 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 for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --