Cadatal v. Ashcroft
This text of 89 F. App'x 122 (Cadatal v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jaime Calanda Cadatal, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We affirm the BIA’s decision and deny the petition for review.
Our jurisdiction is limited to the BIA’s decision. See Elnager v. U.S. INS, 980 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.1991). Here, the BIA denied Cadatal’s motion to reopen as untimely. It alternatively denied Cadatal’s motion because it did not seek reopening based upon new evidence regarding the underlying case. In his present petition, Cadatal does not show that he did, in fact, offer new facts to the BIA. His failure to allege new facts was an adequate ground, by itself, for the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Chae Kim Ro v. INS, 670 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir.1982).
In addition, Cadatal waives any challenge to the BIA’s order denying reconsideration by failing to address that issue in his brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
Petition for Review DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 F. App'x 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadatal-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.