Opinion
20-73281
06-27-2022
YOBANI CARLOS-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 10, 2022 Seattle, Washington
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A092-572-896
Before: IKUTA and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Yobani Carlos-Rivera seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) declining to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings or to grant equitable tolling of the deadline. Carlos-Rivera has not shown that this decision "rel[ied] on a constitutionally or legally erroneous premise." Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 592 (9th Cir. 2016). Nothing in the record indicates that the BIA based its decision on the faulty assumption that Carlos-Rivera would be ineligible for relief if the proceedings were reopened. Nor did the BIA err in rejecting Carlos-Rivera's argument that he could not have filed his motion to reopen earlier because of the "departure bar" in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d). Rather, the BIA correctly noted that Carlos-Rivera did not file his motion until eight years after our 2011 ruling that no such restriction applies. See Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2011). We also reject Carlos-Rivera's argument that the BIA erred by not recognizing that his 1993 deportation order was based on an offense that was subsequently determined not to be an aggravated felony. See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2001). The BIA recognized that Rivera-Sanchez constituted a fundamental change in the law but lawfully exercised its discretion to hold that neither equitable tolling nor sua sponte reopening was warranted based on the totality of the circumstances. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1224, 1230 (9th Cir 2020); Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 585. Finally, Carlos-Rivera has not shown that the BIA erred by departing from its own established policy. See Matter of G-C-L-, 23 I. &N. Dec. 359, 362 (BIA 2002). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Carlos-Rivera's motion. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 585.
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Carlos-Rivera's argument that the 1993 deportation order entered against him was illegal on the ground that it was not supported by a judgment of conviction. Carlos-Rivera failed to raise this issue to the BIA and no exception to the exhaustion requirement applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); see also Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
PETITION DISMISSED.
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.