NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERESA MARIN-HERRERA, AKA No. 19-72293 Veraneca Herrera-Munquia, AKA Teresa Marin, Agency No. A205-647-835 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Teresa Marin-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her * 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). application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. In her opening brief, Marin-Herrera does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that she failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Marin-Herrera’s cancellation of removal claim. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marin-Herrera’s motion to remand, where she submitted evidence of a medical condition she has had since she was 16 years old and which she did not establish could not be treated in Mexico. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (motions to reopen must be supported by evidence that “is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing”)); see also Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th 2 19-72293 Cir. 2008) (“The formal requirements of a motion to remand and a motion to reopen are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Cheneau v. Garland, 997 F.3d 916, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2021). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-72293 19-72293 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Teresa Marin-Herrera v. Merrick Garland 21 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 8be50c22aab0221ddf53b5b36c910a1c60ebbe6c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals