Maria Delores Jebara- Sandobal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA DELORES JEBARA-
SANDOBAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72391
Agency No. A095-117-851
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Delores Jebara-Sandobal, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72391 2
proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the 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 her opening brief, Jebara-Sandobal fails to raise, and therefore has
waived, any challenge to the agency’s determination that she failed to demonstrate
the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline based on the
alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,
1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are
deemed waived).
We reject Jebara-Sandobal’s contention that the agency’s removal order
violated the due process and equal protection rights of her United States citizen
child. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978); see also
Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that
“lawfully denying [the alien parent immigration relief] does not violate any of his
or his family’s substantive rights protected by the Due Process Clause”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --