Ruben Dario Uribe-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA found Uribe-Sanchez's motion to be untimely and declined to exercise its sua sponte discretion to reopen the removal proceedings. Uribe-Sanchez contends that this was error.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise its discretion to grant Uribe-Sanchez's motion to reopen. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court's recent decision in Mata v. Lynch, 135 S.Ct. 2150 (2015), does not disturb our prior precedent on this point. See Oliveira v. Lynch, 670 F. App'x 307, 308 (5th Cir. 2016).
While we do have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Uribe-Sanchez's statutory motion to reopen, see Mata, 135 S. Ct. at 2154-55, Uribe-Sanchez does not dispute that the motion to reopen was barred by statute because he filed it more than 20 years after the removal decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). There is no indication in the record, nor does Uribe-Sanchez argue, that he raised the issue of equitable tolling below. Because he has not demonstrated that the BIA abused its discretion by denying the statutory motion to reopen as time barred, Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014), his petition is therefore denied in part.
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.