Opinion
20-70539
02-22-2022
RAMON YANEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
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. A037-727-096
Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Ramon Yanez-Lopez, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his request for sua sponte reopening of his immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and may review only for legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.
1. Yanez argues that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening based on Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 Fed.Appx. 482 (9th Cir. 2019). But our intervening decision in United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2020), forecloses Yanez's argument that the BIA committed legal error. Rodriguez-Gamboa concluded that California's definition of methamphetamine is not broader than the federal definition. See id. at 1149-50. The BIA effectively anticipated our decision in Rodriguez-Gamboa, and thus did not err.
2. Yanez also has not shown that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening based on INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). Although Yanez purports to identify legal error in the BIA's ruling on the St. Cyr issue, the BIA denied sua sponte reopening because St. Cyr was decided in 2001, and Yanez did not file a motion to reopen until 2019. The BIA thus denied reopening because Yanez provided no explanation for this lengthy delay. To the extent Yanez's petition can be characterized as arguing that the BIA should have reopened proceedings despite the delay, we lack jurisdiction to consider that argument. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. And contrary to Yanez's contention, the BIA did not deny reopening based on any misunderstanding that Yanez was seeking relief under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(h).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.