Sales-Lopez v. Blanche

── Sales-Lopez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAUL GABRIEL SALES-LOPEZ, No. 24-6168 Agency No. Petitioner, A089-948-532 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Saul Gabriel Sales-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motions to reconsider an order of removal and reopen removal proceedings. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. The BIA correctly found Sales-Lopez’s second motion to reconsider untimely and his second motion to reopen untimely and number-barred. A non- citizen “may file only one motion to reconsider” and “only one motion to reopen,” which must be filed within 30 and 90 days of a final removal order, respectively. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). Sales-Lopez filed his second motion to reconsider and his second motion to reopen in July 2024, over a year after a final removal order was entered in April 2023. Sales-Lopez has not established eligibility for an exception to the time and number bars. The BIA considered all relevant evidence and correctly found that Sales-Lopez’s derivative status and “references to changes in his personal life do not establish an exception to the time and number requirements for reopening.” “A petitioner cannot succeed on such a motion [to reopen] that relies solely on a change in personal circumstances, without also providing sufficient evidence of related changed country conditions.” Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Sales-Lopez neither claimed that country conditions in Guatemala had changed nor presented evidence of such a change. 2. The record does not show that Sales-Lopez’s “proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). Sales-Lopez 2 24-6168 argues that the BIA failed to consider the medical circumstances of his children and his status as a derivative on his wife’s asylum application. But the BIA did consider these arguments, and “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). 3. The issuance of a second Notice to Appear (“NTA”) and the government’s request for Sales-Lopez’s wife’s A-number do not justify remand. The two events occurred after the BIA issued its decision that is the subject of this petition for review, and “[w]hen an alien discovers new information after the BIA has finalized deportation proceedings, the proper procedure is for the alien to move the BIA to reopen proceedings, not to petition this Court to compel the BIA to reopen.” Olivar v. INS, 967 F.2d 1381, 1382 (9th Cir. 1992). At any rate, Sales-Lopez has