United States v. 2020-03-10 | 18-71649 | JULIO MEDINA-HERRERA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO ENRIQUE MEDINA-HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71649

Agency No. A072-991-704

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Julio Enrique Medina-Herrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).

*
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

MAR 10 2020

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

2 18-71649
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Medina-Herrera fails to raise, and has therefore waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that he received proper notice
and that his motion to reopen was therefore untimely. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner waives a contention by
failing to raise it in the opening brief).
Medina-Herrera failed to exhaust his contention that the agency need not
reopen, but only re-calendar, his proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.