Albaro Antonio Lemus- Sandoval v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBARO ANTONIO LEMUS-
SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73945
Agency No. A027-193-059
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Albaro Antonio Lemus-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73945
reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Lemus-
Sandoval’s motion to reopen, because he filed the motion a year and a half after his
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to provide
sufficient evidence of materially changed country conditions to invoke the
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d
at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen on the basis
of changed country conditions).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening for
Lemus-Sandoval to seek adjustment of status, because he does not show a legal or
constitutional error that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court can review BIA decisions denying sua
sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind
the decision for legal or constitutional error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --