NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA No. 19-71711 Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, Agency No. A093-161-478 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and terminate or remand proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to * 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). reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Guzman-Alcocer does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s determination that reopening for termination of proceedings was not warranted. 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Guzman- Alcocer’s motion to reopen and remand to adjust status where it was filed more than two years after the order of removal became final. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guzman-Alcocer’s contentions regarding equitable tolling. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). As stated in the court’s September 5, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 19-71711 19-71711 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Arturo Guzman-Alcocer v. Robert Wilkinson 23 February 2021 Agency Unpublished d7fe1bbaf1ba3548512fdf703ebd5c84e6839fdb
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals