NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALONSO TENA-CISNEROS, No. 20-70261

Petitioner, Agency No. A089-926-400

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alonso Tena-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

* 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). discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894

(9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tena-Cisneros’ motion to

reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than nine years after the order of

removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Tena-Cisneros failed

to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte

reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions

for legal or constitutional error.”).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 20-70261