Daniel Rumaja Simorangkir v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL RUMAJA SIMORANGKIR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70075
Agency No. A078-019-875
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Rumaja Simorangkir, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision, and denying his motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70075 2
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Simorangkir fails to address, and therefore has waived
any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he does not qualify for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Simorangkir was not
entitled to reopening in order to apply for adjustment of status where he failed to
establish prima facie eligibility for that relief because he did not maintain
continuously a lawful status after entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(c)(2) (aliens who fail to maintain continuously a lawful status after entry
into the United States are not eligible for adjustment of status); see also Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (prima facie eligibility for
relief is required for reopening). Even assuming that the period of time during
which an asylum application was pending does not count as unlawful presence for
purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(2), the application was not pending for much of the
period Simorangkir was unlawfully present.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70075 3
Simorangkir’s equal protection claim is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --