Mana Diarra v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANA DIARRA, No. 19-70889
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-926-798
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Mana Diarra, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Diarra does not challenge the determination that his motion to reopen was
untimely and that he did not establish an exception to the filing deadline. 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).
Diarra’s contentions that the IJ violated due process, constituting an
exceptional situation that warranted sua sponte reopening, fail because Diarra was
advised of his right to counsel, provided with a list of legal services, given ample
time to seek counsel, assisted by the IJ in reviewing evidence in court, and the
record reflects that Diarra understood the interpreter. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see
also Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has
jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the
limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or
constitutional error.”).
As stated in the court’s June 6, 2019, order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-70889