Saul Rey Zermeno-Castellanos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL REY ZERMENO-CASTELLANOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-298
Agency No.
A094-301-260
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 20, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** District
Judge.
Saul Rey Zermeno-Castellanos petitions for review of an order issued by the
* 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).
*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-298
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his
removal proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary
decision. We therefore dismiss the petition for review.
The BIA denied Zermeno-Castellanos’s second motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred, finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to
justify reopening the proceedings sua sponte. We generally lack jurisdiction to
review the BIA’s exercise of its discretion not to sua sponte reopen removal
proceedings. See Lara-Garcia v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1271, 1277 (9th Cir. 2022).
And although there is an exception to this doctrine permitting review “for the
limited purpose of determining whether the [BIA] based its decision on legal or
constitutional error,” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016),
Zermeno-Castellanos points to no legal or constitutional error that he believes the
BIA committed. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.
DISMISSED.1
1 Zermeno-Castellanos’s request for a stay of removal, is denied as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --