Rudy Diaz-Ruano v. Eric Holder, Jr.

441 F. App'x 415
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2011·No. 09-73713·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rudy Diaz-Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Diaz-Ruano has waived any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that he failed to establish prejudice because his failure to depart within his voluntary departure period rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. 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); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (2004).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).

In light of this disposition, we need not address Diaz-Ruano’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

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

Rudy Diaz-Ruano v. Eric Holder, Jr., 441 F. App'x 415 (9th Cir. 2011).

441 F. App'x 415 (Rudy Diaz-Ruano v. Eric Holder, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related