Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Onofre Ochoa Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico proceeding pro se, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion on the ground that Ochoa Ruiz failed to demonstrate he merited adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, but the scope of review was limited by statutory jurisdiction-stripping provisions.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien fails to merit adjustment of status, even when that determination arises in the context of a motion to reopen. The court further held that the petition did not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The court declined to address Ochoa Ruiz’s arguments regarding statutory eligibility for adjustment of status because the BIA did not deny the motion on that ground, and deemed unchallenged the BIA’s determinations regarding prosecutorial discretion and sua sponte reopening. The motion to stay removal was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of a motion to reopen based on failure to merit adjustment of status as a matter of discretion.
- Patel v. Garland applies to motions to reopen seeking adjustment of status, limiting judicial review to constitutional claims and questions of law.
- The court will not review issues not relied upon by the BIA (e.g., statutory eligibility) or issues not challenged by the petitioner (e.g., prosecutorial discretion, sua sponte reopening).
- A pro se petitioner’s failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim results in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Motions to stay removal are denied as moot when the underlying petition is dismissed.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the jurisdictional bar established in Patel v. Garland as applied to motions to reopen in the Ninth Circuit, confirming that discretionary denials of adjustment of status—whether in initial proceedings or on a motion to reopen—are largely insulated from appellate review. It underscores the narrow pathway for judicial review of immigration discretionary decisions, requiring petitioners to articulate specific colorable legal or constitutional errors rather than mere challenges to factual findings or the exercise of discretion. The decision also illustrates the court’s strict adherence to the administrative exhaustion and issue-exhaustion doctrines, declining to address alternative grounds for relief not ruled on by the BIA or not contested by the parties. The panel did not decide statutory eligibility because the BIA did not rely on that ground. It also did not reach unchallenged determinations concerning prosecutorial discretion or sua sponte reopening. The distinction matters: a petition must identify a colorable legal or constitutional issue, rather than recast disagreement with discretionary weighing as legal error. For immigration appellate practice, preserving an issue requires more than mentioning the desired relief. Counsel must connect the challenged agency action to a reviewable legal rule or constitutional protection and explain how the BIA committed that error. Issues the agency never adopted as a basis for decision generally are not before the reviewing court, while issues left unchallenged in the petition can be treated as abandoned.