Diego Lucas-Molina v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIEGO LUCAS-MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70372
Agency No. A206-457-340
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Diego Lucas-Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider the BIA’s prior order denying his motion to remand. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
* 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
JAN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70372
denial of a motion to reconsider. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th
Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas-Molina’s motion to
reconsider based on his wife’s pending petition for a U visa, where Lucas-Molina
failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior
decision); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (the BIA
abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law).
In his opening brief, Lucas-Molina does not challenge the BIA’s denial of
his motion to reconsider based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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).
As stated in the court’s March 27, 2020 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --