Narciso Cendejas Vazquez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 599 F. App'x 751 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARCISO CENDEJAS VAZQUEZ, No. 13-71696
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-489-256
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Narciso Cendejas Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cendejas Vazquez’ motion
to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than eight months after his
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be
filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and does not dispute that his
motion was untimely or invoke any exception to the motions deadline, see Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives a
contention by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent Cendejas Vazquez contends that the agency erred in declining
to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to
consider that claim. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th
Cir. 2011) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte
determinations).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cendejas-Vazquez’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-71696