Hugo Jacobo-Hector v. Jefferson Sessions , 712 F. App'x 715 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO JACOBO-HECTOR, No. 16-70312
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-750-354
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Jacobo-Hector, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions
to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and
*
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).
review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jacobo-Hector’s motions to
reopen and reconsider as untimely where the motions were filed over two years
after the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day
deadline to file a motion to reopen); (6)(B) (30-day deadline to file a motion to
reconsider).
We reject Jacobo-Hector’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, failed
to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions, or applied an incorrect legal
standard. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
Jacobo-Hector’s contention that the BIA’s denial of the motions violated his
children’s constitutional rights is foreclosed by Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577
F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the contention that a parent’s “deportation
order would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the
constitutional rights of the child”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Jacobo-Hector’s request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
We do not reach Jacobo-Hector’s contentions regarding eligibility for relief,
2 16-70312
sua sponte reopening, and changed circumstances in Mexico. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 986 (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA);
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-70312