Francisco Cardenas Aguilar v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 19 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FRANCISCO CARDENAS AGUILAR,                      No. 14-73563
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A096-354-980
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 13, 2016**
    Before:        FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Francisco Cardenas Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
    motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
    for review.
    Aguilar does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive determination that his
    motion to reopen was untimely and that Aguilar has not established that any
    exception to the filing deadline applies. See Rizk v. Holder, 
    629 F.3d 1083
    , 1091
    n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
    Contrary to Aguilar’s contention, the BIA sufficiently considered his
    arguments and articulated its reasons for denying the motion. See Najmabadi v.
    Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
    Aguilar’s statement that he applied for cancellation of removal is not
    supported by the record, thus his contention that denial of his application for
    cancellation violates equal protection lacks merit.
    Aguilar’s constitutional challenges to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
    Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) and the Illegal Immigration Reform
    and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) also lack merit. See Jimenez-
    Angeles v. Ashcroft, 
    291 F.3d 594
    , 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting equal
    protection claim regarding NACARA); Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 2
                                          14-73563
    1105, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2003) (rejecting similar constitutional challenge to
    IIRIRA).
    To the extent Aguilar challenges the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
    sponte authority to reopen, we lack jurisdiction over that contention. See Mejia-
    Hernandez v. Holder, 
    633 F.3d 818
    , 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
    In light of this disposition, we need not address Aguilar’s remaining
    contentions regarding eligibility for cancellation of removal.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    3                                    14-73563
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-73563

Judges: Farris, Tallman, Bybee

Filed Date: 4/19/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024