Ndidi Nnaji v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NDIDI NNAJI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73962
Agency No. A098-260-957
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on June 15, 2015. Thus,
the respondent’s motion to terminate the stay is denied as moot.
Ndidi Nnaji, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) November 3, 2012, order dismissing his
FILED
SEP 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the
petition for review.
Nnaji previously appealed the BIA’s January 24, 2011, order dismissing his
appeal from the IJ’s denial of his claims (No. 11-70554), and we remanded to the
BIA pursuant to respondent’s unopposed motion. Following remand, the BIA
again dismissed Nnaji’s appeal, and Nnaji appealed again (No. 12-73962).
In his opening brief, Nnaji challenges the BIA’s time-bar analysis but does
not raise any substantive challenge to the BIA’s dispositive finding that he did not
establish a nexus to a protected ground. 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 reject Nnaji’s contention that the BIA could
not have an alternate basis for denying his asylum claim. See Stoyanov v. INS, 172
F.3d 731, 735-36 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing court may uphold BIA’s alternative
basis for decision). Thus, Nnaji’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In addition, Nnaji has not raised any arguments regarding CAT relief. See
id. Thus, we deny the petition with respect to his CAT claim as well.
12-73962 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we deny Nnaji’s renewed motion to consolidate this case with No.
11-70554, which was closed on June 18, 2012. We note that Nnaji incorrectly
asserts that the parties fully briefed this case under No. 11-70554, as no answering
brief was filed in that case. We also note that, in our December 23, 2013 order, we
previously denied Nnaji’s request to consider the opening brief filed in No. 11-
70554 in connection with No. 12-73962. We further instructed him that No. 11-
70554 remained closed, and informed him that he had to address all issues in the
brief for this case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73962 3

-- 3 of 3 --