Bernabe Lozano Valverde v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNABE LOZANO VALVERDE and No. 14-73065
AGUSTINA MAGDALENA FLORES
REBOLLAR, Agency Nos. A097-873-127
A097-873-128
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Bernabe Lozano Valverde and Agustina Magdalena Flores Rebollar, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners do not raise, and therefore have waived, any challenge to the
BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen was untimely. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an
opening brief are waived). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to
adequately explain its decision is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990 (what is required is that the BIA adequately considered evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision).
To the extent petitioners challenge 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions challenging the
BIA’s September 14, 2006, order denying cancellation of removal because this
petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The
petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final
order of removal.”).
2 14-73065
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ equal protection
claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73065