Gustavo Chairez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Gustavo Chairez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

472 F. App'x 706

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2012

Docket08-71065

StatusUnpublished

This text of 472 F. App'x 706 (Gustavo Chairez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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.

Bluebook

Gustavo Chairez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 472 F. App'x 706 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Felix Enrique Pacheco Sierra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)'order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacheco-Sierra’s motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining Pacheco-Sierra did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under- the Convention Against Torture. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

In the opening brief, Pacheco-Sierra does not challenge the BIA’s determination that the motion to reconsider the deni *708 al of his cancellation of removal claim was not timely filed. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Pacheco-Sierra’s challenge to the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal and his related due process claim, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Felix Enrique Pacheco Sierra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)'order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacheco-Sierra’s motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining Pacheco-Sierra did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under- the Convention Against Torture. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

In the opening brief, Pacheco-Sierra does not challenge the BIA’s determination that the motion to reconsider the deni *708 al of his cancellation of removal claim was not timely filed. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Pacheco-Sierra’s challenge to the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal and his related due process claim, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F. App'x 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustavo-chairez-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack