ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA
Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71711
Agency No. A093-161-478
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen and terminate or remand proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
* 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 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71711
reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Guzman-Alcocer does not raise any challenge to the
BIA’s determination that reopening for termination of proceedings was not
warranted. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Guzman-
Alcocer’s motion to reopen and remand to adjust status where it was filed more
than two years after the order of removal became final. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guzman-Alcocer’s contentions
regarding equitable tolling. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We
also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review
Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing
the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
As stated in the court’s September 5, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --