Zermeno-Castellanos v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAUL REY ZERMENO-CASTELLANOS, No. 22-298 Agency No. Petitioner, A094-301-260 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 20, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** District Judge. Saul Rey Zermeno-Castellanos petitions for review of an order issued by the * 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). *** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision. We therefore dismiss the petition for review. The BIA denied Zermeno-Castellanos’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, finding that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify reopening the proceedings sua sponte. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of its discretion not to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings. See Lara-Garcia v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1271, 1277 (9th Cir. 2022). And although there is an exception to this doctrine permitting review “for the limited purpose of determining whether the [BIA] based its decision on legal or constitutional error,” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016), Zermeno-Castellanos points to no legal or constitutional error that he believes the BIA committed. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. DISMISSED.1 1 Zermeno-Castellanos’s request for a stay of removal, is denied as moot. 2 22-298