JOSE MAURICIO MORAN-MIRANDA, AKA Joses Moran Miranda v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MAURICIO MORAN-MIRANDA,
AKA Joses Moran Miranda,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70025
Agency No. A029-184-024
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mauricio Moran-Miranda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70025
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.1
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Moran-Miranda’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over two years after the final removal
order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within
ninety days of the final removal order), and Moran-Miranda has not established
changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for an exception to the filing
deadline, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant must produce material evidence that conditions in
country of nationality had changed); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject as
unsupported by the record Moran-Miranda’s contentions that the agency failed to
correctly consider the evidence or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim.
As to sua sponte reopening, the BIA did not err in determining that the IJ
lacked jurisdiction to consider Moran-Miranda’s request for a waiver of
inadmissibility. See Man v. Barr, 940 F.3d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir. 2019)
1 We grant the motion for leave to file an out-of-time amici curiae brief (Docket
Entry No. 26).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70025
(“Immigration Judges lack the authority to consider a request by a petitioner for U
nonimmigrant status for a waiver under section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the
[Immigration and Nationality] Act.” (citing Matter of Khan, 26 I & N Dec. 797,
803 (BIA 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We otherwise lack
jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. 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 decision
for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --