ELMER LOPEZ-ORDENAS, AKA Elmer Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELMER LOPEZ-ORDENAS, AKA Elmer
Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 16-73740
17-72013
18-71921
Agency No. A070-155-265
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Elmer Lopez-Ordenas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying three
motions 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.
* 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 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73740, 17-72013, 18-71921
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Ordenas’s three
motions to reopen where they were filed more than two years after the final
reinstated order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); where the second
and third motions to reopen were numerically barred, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A); and where Lopez-Ordenas failed to establish any exceptions to
the time and number limitations, including changed conditions in Guatemala, see
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denials of sua sponte reopening
where Lopez-Ordenas has not asserted any legal or constitutional error. 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.”).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --