Julio Medina-Herrera v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 10 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JULIO ENRIQUE MEDINA-HERRERA,                   No.    18-71649
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A072-991-704
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 3, 2020**
    Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    Julio Enrique Medina-Herrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
    motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction
    is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
    motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
    *
    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).
    We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    In his opening brief, Medina-Herrera fails to raise, and has therefore waived,
    any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that he received proper notice
    and that his motion to reopen was therefore untimely. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
    Holder, 
    706 F.3d 1072
    , 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner waives a contention by
    failing to raise it in the opening brief).
    Medina-Herrera failed to exhaust his contention that the agency need not
    reopen, but only re-calendar, his proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 
    628 F.3d 1071
    ,
    1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
    We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening.
    See Bonilla v. Lynch, 
    840 F.3d 575
    , 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                18-71649
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-71649

Filed Date: 3/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/10/2020