Opinion
No. 18-71367
03-15-2019
MARCELINO SEGUNDO-SANCHEZ, AKA Marcelino Sanchez, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A200-248-313 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Marcelino Segundo-Sanchez, 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 for abuse of discretion. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Segundo-Sanchez's untimely motion to reopen where he failed to establish that he qualified for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion where motion to reopen did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Segundo-Sanchez's contention regarding the harm he fears as a person with a nexus to America who will be targeted by cartels because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
We reject Segundo-Sanchez's contention that the BIA did not properly evaluate all of his evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.