Javier Ramirez-Rivera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER RAMIREZ-RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71691
Agency No. A096-027-236
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Javier Ramirez-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
* 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
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71691
de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen sua sponte
is limited to determining whether the BIA based its decision on legal or
constitutional error. Id. at 581-82. Ramirez-Rivera has not shown any legal error
underlying the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish an exceptional
situation exists where he failed to promptly respond to a change in law. See Lona
v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he Board is not required . . .
to reopen proceedings sua sponte in exceptional situations, even those involving a
fundamental change in the law.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To
the extent that Ramirez-Rivera contends the BIA erred in failing to consider he did
not present the change in law earlier due to ineffective assistance of counsel, we
lack jurisdiction to consider the contention because he failed to raise the issue
before the BIA. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (“What matters is that the
BIA was sufficiently on notice so that it ‘had an opportunity to pass on this issue.’”
(internal citation omitted)).
Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address
Ramirez-Rivera’s remaining contentions regarding whether he established prima
facie eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71691
2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --