Jose Luis Aparicio-Reyes v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS APARICIO-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-341
Agency No.
A209-138-767
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Aparicio-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
* 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
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-341
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA denied on discretionary grounds Aparicio-Reyes’s motion to
reopen to reapply for cancellation of removal. See id. (BIA may deny motion to
reopen on ground that even if eligibility factors were satisfied, “the movant would
not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief which he sought” (internal
citation omitted)). Our jurisdiction is thus limited to constitutional claims and
questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D). To the extent we can
consider Aparicio-Reyes’s contention that the BIA erred by not considering his
positive equities, we conclude that the BIA’s analysis was adequate. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (agency need not write an exegesis on every
contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner
did not overcome presumption that BIA reviewed the record). Thus, the BIA did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Because the denial as a matter of discretion is dispositive, we need not reach
Aparicio-Reyes’s remaining contentions regarding hardship. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-341
proceedings sua sponte is limited to contentions of legal or constitutional error.
See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). We find no legal or
constitutional error on the face of the BIA’s decision.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --