Nava v. Holder
This text of 333 F. App'x 165 (Nava v. Holder) 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
Leticia Rodriguez Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Rodriguez Nava fails to address, and thereby waives any challenge to, the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying Rodriguez Nava’s application for cancellation of removal, because this 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
333 F. App'x 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nava-v-holder-ca9-2009.