Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sylviana Chandra and her husband, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The memorandum describes the motion as untimely and number-barred, meaning it fell outside the usual limits on when and how often a noncitizen may ask to reopen. It does not identify the form of relief the couple sought, the new evidence they offered, or the arguments in their briefs, and those details cannot be reconstructed from the disposition.
The case came to the court as a petition for review of a BIA decision, and the panel noted that its jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Judges Silverman, Forrest, and VanDyke found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument and decided it on submission on October 27, 2026. The disposition was filed the next day as an unpublished memorandum.
The Court’s Holding
The court reviewed the denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, citing Mohammed v. Gonzales. It held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely and number-barred motion because petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Quoting Bhasin v. Gonzales, the panel stated that an applicant must show that the new evidence, considered together with the evidence at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. The memorandum does not walk through the evidence or explain why the showing fell short.
The panel separately addressed sua sponte reopening. Citing Lona v. Barr, it explained that it has jurisdiction to review that discretionary determination only for legal or constitutional error, and it found none underlying the BIA's decision. The court then ordered the petition denied in part and dismissed in part. The memorandum does not label which part is which, but in context the denial corresponds to the motion to reopen and the dismissal to the discretionary sua sponte question.
The court granted no relief. It ordered no remand and did not address any other aspect of the underlying removal case.
Key Takeaways
- A BIA denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the Ninth Circuit will uphold it when the petitioner has not shown prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.
- For a motion that is untimely and number-barred, the new evidence must be considered together with the original hearing record and must establish prima facie eligibility, according to the passage the panel quoted from Bhasin.
- Review of the BIA's decision not to reopen sua sponte is limited to legal or constitutional error, and the panel found neither here.
- The disposition is unpublished and, under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, is not precedent except as that rule provides.
Why It Matters
This memorandum applies settled Ninth Circuit standards rather than announcing new law. It shows that a motion to reopen filed outside the time and number limits can fail on the prima facie eligibility showing alone. It also shows that a court reviewing the BIA's refusal to reopen sua sponte looks only for legal or constitutional error rather than reweighing the discretionary call.
Because the decision is unpublished, it carries no precedential weight and offers little detail on the facts or the evidence. Its value is as an illustration of how the panel applied Mohammed, Bhasin, and Lona. Whether the petitioners could pursue any other avenue for relief is not addressed.