Wendy Mejia-Pena v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY CAROLINA MEJIA-PENA, No. 17-73372
Petitioner, Agency No. A202-085-734
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Carolina Mejia-Pena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reissue its prior decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
*
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).
In her opening brief Mejia-Pena does not challenge, and therefore waives,
the BIA’s denial of her motion to reissue its prior decision. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to her motion to reissue.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia-Pena’s contentions as to the merits of
her asylum application and related relief because she did not timely petition for
review the BIA’s order denying that relief. See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882
(9th Cir. 2016) (“A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the
date of the final order of removal. . . . This deadline is mandatory and
jurisdictional.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-73372