ELIZABETH LONA, AKA Lisa Elizabeth Lona, AKA Lisa Luna, AKA Chata Monkiker, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-70329
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed May 15, 2020
Agency No. A090-045-915
Before: Ronald M. Gould and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Stephen R. Bough,* District Judge.
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2019 San Francisco, California
Opinion by Judge Callahan*
SUMMARY**
Immigration
Denying Elizabeth Lona‘s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her motion for reconsideration, the panel held that: (1) the BIA‘s denial of equitable tolling was not unreasonable; (2) notwithstanding the BIA‘s precedent regarding fundamental changes in the law, the BIA‘s denial of sua sponte reconsideration was not premised on legal or constitutional error; and (3) Lona‘s “settled course of adjudication” argument is barred by the general rule that the court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power in a given case.
In 2013, Lona was removed to Mexico based on an aggravated felony conviction, which related to her California convictions for petty theft and/or burglary. Over two and a half years later, she moved for reconsideration in light of new case law, including Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2015), which held that convictions under California‘s theft statute are categorically not aggravated felonies. First, she argued that Lopez-Valencia, and other decisions, fundamentally changed the law, invalidating the aggravated felony status of her convictions and her basis for removal. Second, she argued that she was entitled to equitable tolling of the thirty-day timeline for reconsideration. Third, she cited BIA precedent holding that a significant development in the law constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” warranting the agency‘s exercise of its sua sponte authority to reopen or reconsider cases. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA affirmed.
First, responding to Lona‘s argument that the BIA erred by not addressing her equitable tolling claim, the panel concluded that the BIA implicitly rejected that claim. The panel inferred the BIA‘s decision to mean that, regardless of whether the change in law effected by Lopez-Valencia was “fundamental,” Lona was not entitled to equitable tolling because (1) she failed to act with due diligence in discovering and raising the error asserted by Lopez-Valencia before the BIA and later, successfully before this court; and (2) she failed to do so despite the lack of impediments to obtaining vital information bearing on the existence of the claim. The panel agreed, explaining that Lona alleged no facts suggesting diligence, or that some extraordinary circumstance prevented her from timely filing her motion.
Second, the panel rejected Lona‘s contention that the BIA‘s denial of sua sponte reconsideration was premised on or amounted to “legal or constitutional error” that is reviewable under Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016). The panel explained that review under Bonilla is limited to those situations where it is obvious that the agency has denied sua sponte relief not as a matter of discretion, but because it erroneously believed that the law forbade it from exercising its discretion, or that exercising its discretion would be futile. The panel found no such error in the BIA‘s decision here.
Third, the panel rejected Lona‘s argument that the BIA‘s decision was сontrary to its previous decisions holding that a fundamental change in the law is an exceptional circumstance warranting sua sponte reopening. The panel viewed the argument as a tacit invocation of the Third Circuit‘s “settled course of adjudication” doctrine. The panel explained that the Supreme Court case on which the Third Circuit based its “settled course” review is directly at odds with the Third Circuit‘s approach, and that “settled course” review is incompatible with the general rule that the court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power in a given case. The panel further explained that “settled course” review is abuse-of-discretion review, as it asks the court to evaluate the BIA‘s exercise of its sua sponte authority in a given case against its decisions in past cases to consider whether the BIA may have irrationally departed from its settled practice. But, the court explained, this is precisely what the court‘s case law prohibits: weighing the wisdom of the BIA‘s decision in any given case.
COUNSEL
Ana F. Barhoum (argued), Olmos & Barhoum LLP, San Jose, California; Jennie I. Medina (argued), Mira Law Group A.P.C., San Leandro, California; Mei F. Chen, Canton, Georgia; for Petitioner.
Micah Engler (argued), Trial Attorney; Andrew N. O‘Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
Four years ago, in Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016), we addressed how changes in immigration law “affect an individual ordered deported from the United States when, as it turns out, the law concerning the grounds for deportation, or for denial of relief from deportation, changes after the individual is ordered deported.” Id. at 578. We reaffirmed that the decision to grant or deny sua sponte relief in such circumstances is “committed to agency discretion by law and, therefore, unreviewable.” Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2011). At the same time, we held we have jurisdiction to review Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denials of sua sponte reconsideration or reopening for “legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588.
Bonilla remains settled law in the Ninth Circuit. BIA denials of sua sponte relief premised on legal or constitutional error remain the “one narrow exception” to our rule that the agency‘s sua sponte authority is not subject to judicial review. Menendez-Gonzalez v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2019). However, in Menendez-Gonzalez, we alluded to a potential expansion of Bonilla in cases where “petitioners ‘establish that the BIA has limited its discretion via a policy, rule, settled course of adjudication, or by some other method, such that the BIA‘s discretion can be meaningfully reviewed for abuse.‘” Id. at 1117 (quoting Sang Goo Park v. Attorney Gen., 846 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 2017)).
The petitioner,1 Elizabeth Lona, seeks to take advantage of this language, asking us to exercise our limited jurisdiction under Bonilla to reverse the BIA‘s denial of reconsideration based on “a fundamental change in the law” that occurred two years after she was ordered removed, waived her appeal, and was removed to Mexico. She
We hold that: (1) the BIA‘s denial of equitable tolling was not unreasonable; (2) notwithstanding the BIA‘s precedent regarding fundamental changes in the law, the BIA‘s denial of sua sponte reconsideration here was not premised on legal or constitutional error; and (3) Lona‘s “settled course” argument is barred by our general rule that we lack jurisdiction to review claims “that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power” in a given case. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
I
Elizabeth Lona is a native and citizen of Mexico. She entered the United States in 1974, the year she was born, and became a lawful permanent resident in 1989.
In 2009, Lona was convicted of petty theft and petty theft with priors in violation of
Over two and a half years later, Lona moved for reconsideration of her final removal order in light of Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2015), Rendon v.
Holder, 764 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013). First, she argued that these decisions fundamentally changed the law, invalidating the “aggravated felony” status of her convictions and, therefore, her basis for removal.3 Second, she argued that she
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposed Lona‘s motion, arguing that Descamps and Lopez-Valencia were not “fundamental changes in the law” and that,
regardless, Lona failed to cite any authority that those cases “are to be applied retroactively after someone has already been removed on an Immigration Judge‘s order of removal that was valid when it was executed.” DHS noted that Lona had withdrawn her right to appeal from her initial order of removal and argued that no exceptions to untimeliness applied. Thе IJ agreed with DHS and summarily denied Lona‘s motion.
Lona appealed the IJ‘s decision to the BIA. Without expressly addressing Lona‘s equitable tolling argument, the BIA affirmed the IJ‘s denial of Lona‘s motion to reconsider as “untimely” and noted that Lona “waived her appeal.” The BIA noted that it “must be persuaded that the respondent‘s situation is truly exceptional” before exercising its sua sponte authority to reconsider and concluded that Lona had not met her burden of persuasion:
[Lona] argues that . . . Lopez-Valencia . . . fundamentally changed the law, such that [her] conviction is no longer an aggravated felony. [She] had a full and fair opportunity to raise arguments similar to the ones accepted in Lopez-Valencia but failed to do so. She waived appeal from the Immigration Judge‘s order of removal and was removed. Her case is finаl and does not warrant reconsideration.
Accordingly, the BIA dismissed Lona‘s appeal.
Lona timely petitioned us to review the BIA‘s decision.
II
We have jurisdiction under
A motion to reconsider a final order of removal generally must be filed within thirty days of the date of entry of the order.
In order for an individual to obtain sua sponte relief under
Lona makes thrеe arguments in support of her petition. First, she argues that the BIA erred in not addressing her entitlement to equitable tolling of the statutory deadline for seeking reconsideration because she filed her motion “as soon as practicable” after the Ninth Circuit‘s decision in Lopez-Valencia, the timing of which was a circumstance “beyond her control.” Second, she argues that the BIA committed “legal error” under Bonilla by misconstruing its sua sponte authority to reconsider a final order of removal based on a fundamental change in the law even where, as here, the petitioner waived her initial appeal and was removed. Third, Lona argues that the BIA ignored or misapplied its own precedent “that a fundamental change in the law is an exceptional circumstance which warrants sua sponte reоpening“—a tacit invocation of the “settled course” exception we discussed in Menendez-Gonzalez.
We reject Lona‘s arguments and hold that the BIA‘s decision fell within its broad discretion, did not involve legal or constitutional error, and does not entitle her to any relief.
A
We “recognize[] equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen or reconsider during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error.” Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, equitable tolling is available where, “despite all due diligence,” the party invoking the doctrine “is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim.” Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although claims for equitable tolling typically arise in conjunction with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, see, e.g., Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 898-99, claims based on
In Lugo-Resendez, the Fifth Circuit remanded for further factual development of Lugo-Resendez‘s claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling based on Garcia-Carias v. Holder, 697 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2012), which reversed the BIA‘s long-held and unequivocal ban on reopening of removal proceedings once an individual ordered removed has departed the United States (the so-called “departure bar“).5 Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 340-41, 343-45. Upon remand, the BIA found that Lugo-Resendez had “made repeated efforts over the course of approximately 3 years to learn whether his proceedings could be reopened” and
abandoned these efforts only “because he was told on multiple occasions that there was nothing that could be done about his case and he was unaware that the law affecting his removability could change.” In re: Sergio Lugo-Resendez, No. AXXX XX0 500, 2017 WL 8787197, at *3 (BIA Dec. 28, 2017). Once Lugo-Resendez became aware of the change in the law effected by Garcia-Carias, he took immediate steps to obtain sua sponte relief.6 Id. The BIA held that Lugo-Resendez was entitled to equitable tolling because he “pursu[ed] his rights with ‘reasonable diligence‘” and “‘extraordinary circumstances . . . beyond his control’ prevented him from filing his motion” sooner. Id. (quoting Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 344).
Here, the BIA implicitly rejected Lona‘s argument for equitable tolling when it concluded that her motion for reconsideration was “untimely by 2 years and 7 months” and found that Lona “had a full and fair opportunity to raise arguments similar to the ones accepted in Lopez-Valencia but failed to do so.” We infer this to mean that, regardless of whether the change in law effected by Lopez-Valencia was “fundamental,” Lona was not entitled to equitable tolling because (1) she failed to act with due diligence in discovering and raising the error asserted by Lopez-Valencia
before the BIA and later, successfully, before us; and (2) she failed to do so despite the lack of impediments “to obtain[ing] vital information bearing on the existence of the claim.”7 Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1193.
theft statute that we characterized as “not complicated.” Lopez-Valencia, 798 F.3d at 866, 869.
Given the lack of evidence that Lona tоok any action prior to our decision in Lopez-Valencia and the obvious and uncomplicated nature of her underlying claim, we hold that the BIA‘s implicit denial of Lona‘s claim for equitable tolling was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Go, 744 F.3d at 609. Accordingly, we deny Lona‘s petition for review as to her motion for reconsideration under
B
We next address Lona‘s contention that the BIA‘s dismissal of her appeal was premised on or amounts to “legal or constitutional error” under Bonilla.
Before Bonilla, the rule we observed—despite the general “presumption favoring . . . judicial review of administrative action,” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 237 (2010) (citation omitted)—was that we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA‘s sua sponte authority under
id. at 586, “it is impossible to evaluate agency action for ‘abuse of discretion.‘” Ekimian, 303 F.3d at 1158 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985)).
In Bonilla, we carved out a narrow exception to this jurisdictional bar. The BIA had denied Bonilla‘s untimely motion for reopening not on its merits, but rather because the agency “believed, incorrectly, that Bonilla had lost his lawful permanent resident status when he was deported and, even if reоpening were granted,” he would not regain his status to become eligible for certain relief. 840 F.3d at 589. On appeal, we held that, as a matter of law, granting the motion would vacate the final deportation
Our opinion in Bonilla built on our opinion in Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2014), where we found “legal error” in the BIA‘s denial of Singh‘s untimely motion to reopen because it was based on the BIA‘s incorrect belief that “it lacked authority to reopen his exclusion proceedings” on its own motion.8 Id. at 650. In both cases, we held that
the BIA‘s denials of sua sponte relief were not “exercises” of its unfettered discretion under
Here, we see no “incorrect legal premise” in the BIA‘s decision to deny sua sponte relief. The BIA cleаrly articulated the “truly exceptional situations” standard for its exercise of discretion under
id. at 1135—and acknowledged Lona‘s argument that Lopez-Valencia “fundamentally changed the law” by invalidating the aggravated-felony status of her petty theft conviction. It then noted three factors weighing against a finding of exceptional circumstances in her case: (1) Lona‘s failure “to raise arguments similar to the ones accepted in Lopez-Valencia” despite “a full and fair opportunity” to do so; (2) Lona‘s waiver of appeal; and (3) her actual removal. Finally, the BIA concluded that Lona‘s “case is final and does not warrant reconsideration,” demonstrating that the agency
Lona argues that the BIA‘s decision was incorrectly premised on the finality of her case, her appeal waiver, and her removal to Mexico, and that none of these deprived the BIA of its authority to grant sua sponte relief. She notes that in Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2006), we reaffirmed that an alien who files a timely motion to reopen removal proceedings may be entitled to reopening, even post-removal, if his state conviction is vacated and that conviction formed a “key part of his removal proceedings.”10 Id. at 1106-07 (citing Wiedersperg v. INS, 896 F.2d 1179 (9th Cir. 1990); Estrada-Rosales v. INS, 645 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1981)). Indeed, like the Fifth Circuit, we have held the regulatory departure bar—prohibiting post-departure motions to reconsider or reopen subsequent to the
movant‘s departure from the United States—to be invalid and to pose no limitations on an alien‘s ability to seek reconsideration or reopening or the BIA‘s authority to grant such relief. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011); Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010).
But the BIA‘s decision here evinces no misunderstanding about its unfettered discretion under
does not extend to speculating whether the BIA might have misunderstood some aspect of its discretion.
Because we hold that the BIA‘s decision was free of “legal or constitutional error,” we need not decide whether Lopez-Valencia fundamentally changed the law. However, even if Lopez-Valencia was a fundamental change, it does not follow that the BIA committed legal or constitutional error in denying Lona relief. “[T]he Board is not required to reopen proceedings
[t]he governing regulation,
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) , still grants the Board unfettered discretion to reopen sua sponte as it sees fit. The Board‘s recognition of a “fundamental change in the law” in a particular case is simply a means of describing when the Board has decided that a certain intervening development constitutes an “exceptionаl situation” warranting an exercise of its discretion to reopen. A finding of “fundamental change” is thus an expression of discretion; it is not the sort of “legal premise” that concerned the courts in [Bonilla,] Pllumi and Mahmood.12
Barajas-Salinas v. Holder, 760 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 2014); see also Sang Goo Park, 846 F.3d at 650 (“[T]he presence of an exceptional situation does not compel [the BIA] to act; the BIA may still decide against reopening.“).
In short, unlike in Bonilla and Singh, the BIA‘s denial of Lona‘s motion to reconsider was untainted by legal or constitutional error. Because the BIA‘s decision evinces no misunderstanding of the agency‘s broad discretion to grant or deny sua sponte relief—that is, the BIA “exercise[d] its authority against the correct legal background“—there is nothing left for us to review. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588, 592.
C
Finally, we reject Lona‘s argument that the BIA‘s “arbitrary and capricious decision is not entitled to deference because it is contrary to its previous decisions” and its precedent holding “that a fundamental change in the law is an exceptional circumstance which warrants sua sponte reopening.”
We view this as a tacit invocation of the Third Circuit‘s “settled course of adjudication” doctrine, which we alluded to, but did not adopt, in Menendez-Gonzalez. In that case, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA‘s denial of Menendez-Gonzalez‘s untimely motion to reopen based on the vacatur of his underlying conviction, even though he presented some evidence (ten unpublished cases) of the BIA‘s practice of granting sua sponte reopening in
similar circumstances. Menendez-Gonzalez, 929 F.3d at 1117-19. We held that Menendez-Gonzalez did “not establish a ‘settled pattern of adjudication’ or provide us with any meaningful standard to apply to limit the agency‘s еxercise of discretion“; nor did he establish “any ‘incorrect legal premise’ in the BIA‘s decision not to reopen sua sponte where [he] waited years before moving to reopen.” Id. at 1118-19 (quoting Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588). Nevertheless, we mused that “the BIA‘s departure from an established policy, set ‘by rule or by settled course of adjudication,’ could amount to a legal or constitutional error” under Bonilla. Id. at 1118 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). We commented, however, that “the existence of a ‘settled course’ cannot be lightly inferred,” and that “[t]he question is whether the agency has acted to constrain its
We note that the Supreme Court case upon which the Third Circuit based its adoption of “settled course” review, INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26 (1996), did not address the BIA‘s sua sponte authority to reopen or reconsider under
question.”14 Id. at 29 n.1 (citing
The Supreme Court did note that an agency‘s past practice is not “irrelevant,” and that an agency could, “by rule or by settled course of adjudication,” adopt “a general policy by which its exercise of discretion will be governed, [such that] an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as ‘arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion.‘” Id. at 32 (alteration in original) (citing
exercise their discretion in an apparently inconsistent manner. Furthermore, contrary to the Third Circuit, we do not read Yueh-Shaio Yang as stating or implying that “settled course” review could be available in the context of agency actions that are “committed to agency discretion by law and, therefore, unreviewable.” Mejia-Hernandez, 633 F.3d at 823-24 (citing Ekimian, 303 F.3d at 1159).
More fundamentally, we conclude that “settled course” review is incompatible with the general rule, reaffirmed in Bonilla, that we lack jurisdiction to review claims “that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power” in a given
no authority to consider the consistency of the BIA‘s decisions, or to even begin comparing the circumstances of the present case against the circumstances in past cases where sua sponte relief was granted.
The Third Circuit, however, suggests that the “evaluation of the authorities marshaled by the petitioner logically precedes, rather than follows, a finding of jurisdiction to conduct abuse-of-discretion review—although we can of course refer to the BIA‘s decision from which the petition arises to determine whether it fits into the pattern alleged by the petitioner.” Sang Goo Park, 846 F.3d at 653. In our opinion, “settled course” review is abuse-of-discretion review, regardless of when undertaken. It asks that we evaluate the BIA‘s exercise of its sua sponte authority in a given case against its decisions in past cases to consider whether the BIA may have “irrationally departed frоm its settled practice.” Menendez-Gonzalez, 929 F.3d at 1117. But this is precisely what Ekimian prohibits: our weighing the wisdom of the BIA‘s decision in any given case. Nothing in Bonilla undermined or amended that general prohibition.17
No other Court of Appeals has joined the Third Circuit in recognizing a “settled course” exception in the context of
sua sponte reopening.” Sang Goo Park, 846 F.3d at 653 n.35. To the extent we suggested that we might do so in Menendez-Gonzalez, we walk back that suggestion now. Short of the BIA adopting an explicit rule that it will apply in every case, our review of the BIA‘s unfettered discretion to reconsider or reopen on its own motion is limited to instances where the agency misconstrues the parameters of its sua sponte authority based on legal or constitutional error and, as a consequence, does not truly exercise its discretion. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588-89. The Eighth Circuit has similarly rejected “settled course” review as incompatible with its own precedent
We further note that adoрtion of the Third Circuit‘s “settled course” approach would conflict with the general principle that there is no “theory of partial reviewability” for actions committed to agency discretion. Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 674-75 (1960); see Dep‘t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2605 (2019) (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[W]hen an action ‘is committed to agency discretion by law,’ the Judiciary has no role to play, even when an agency sets forth ‘an eminently reviewable proposition.‘” (quoting ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng‘rs, 482 U.S. 270, 282-83 (1987) (rejecting the proposition that “if [an] agency gives a ‘reviewable’ reason for [an] otherwise unreviewable action, the action becomes reviewable“))). Citing this general principle, the Eighth Circuit recently declined to adopt an “incorrect legal premise” exception similar to the one we adopted in Bonilla, in a case in which the petitioner, like Lona, sought review of the BIA‘s denial of sua sponte relief based on a “fundamental change in the law.” See Chong Toua Vue v.Barr, 953 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing Bhd. of Locomotive Eng‘rs, 482 U.S. at 282-83) (“As the Supreme Court has made clear, when the law commits certain actions to agency discretion, we cannot pick and choose what to review depending on the particulars of each case.“).
In sum, our review for legal or constitutional error under Bonilla does not encompass alleged inconsistencies between the BIA‘s grants or denials of discretionary relief. Rather, we look to whether the particular decision at issue involved legal error, as the Supreme Court held in Yueh-Shaio Yang. Here, because Lona‘s assertion that the BIA‘s denial of sua sponte relief is inconsistent with its decisions in other cases does not present an issue of legal or constitutional error, we deny her petition for reviеw.
CONCLUSION
As we observed in Bonilla: “Immigration law changes over time. New statutes are enacted; agency interpretations change; new appellate and Supreme Court decisions issue.” 840 F.3d at 578. Not every circumstance involving a change in the law that occurs after an individual‘s departure from the United States warrants reconsideration of the individual‘s final removal order or reopening of removal proceedings. The BIA is empowered to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the circumstances are exceptional such that the agency‘s exercise of sua sponte authority is warranted. We decline to adopt an approach that would invite us to consider—and, inevitably, to second-guess—the BIA‘s case-by-case determination of when to grant sua sponte rеlief.
The BIA determined Lona‘s case to be unexceptional and not entitled to sua sponte reconsideration. We cannot, by law, disagree.
THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.