Chi-Poot v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDI CHI-POOT, No. 22-1266
Agency No.
Petitioner, A200-551-364
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Fredi Chi-Poot petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
June 28, 2022 decision denying his motion to reconsider and his motion to
reopen. Chi-Poot did not address this decision or any of its reasoning in his
opening brief. He thus forfeited the opportunity to contest the Board’s decision.
See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). The
*
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).
arguments Chi-Poot has presented, moreover, are not properly before this court.
Those arguments concern issues the Board addressed in its November 8, 2019
and January 25, 2021 decisions, which Chi-Poot has not appealed. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(5) (a petition for review is “the sole and exclusive means for judicial
review of an order of removal” entered under the Immigration and Nationality
Act).1
PETITION DENIED.
1
The Board did not, in any event, abuse its discretion in denying Chi-Poot’s
motions. His motion to reconsider was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and his motion to reopen was both untimely, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and number-barred, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). None of the exceptions to the
time or number limitations on motions to reopen apply here. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3).
2 22-1266