United States v. 2020-02-10 | 18-71119 | ANTONIO ORTIZ-OJEDA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO ORTIZ-OJEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71119

Agency No. A075-720-003

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Ortiz-Ojeda, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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. Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-71119
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz-Ojeda’s seventh
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed 12 years after
his final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and he has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that
the exception for changed country conditions did not apply, see Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised in the opening
brief are deemed waived).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the
time- and number-bars, where Ortiz-Ojeda failed to comply with the procedural
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Singh v.
Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (to qualify for equitable tolling for a
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must
comply with Lozada).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of sua sponte reopening.
See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ortiz-Ojeda’s contentions regarding the
denial of his application for cancellation of removal because he failed to raise these
contentions before the BIA in his motion to reopen. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the

3 18-71119
BIA).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider the due process claim that Ortiz-Ojeda
raises for the first time in his opening brief because he did not exhaust this claim
before the agency. See id. at 678.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.