United States v. 2020-09-11 | 18-72918 | BANGALLY FATTY V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BANGALLY FATTY,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Nos. 18-72918
19-71929

Agency No. A097-119-552

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Bangally Fatty, a native and
citizen of the Gambia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying his motion to reconsider and terminate and his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny

*
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

SEP 11 2020

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

2 19-71929
the petitions for review.
As to No. 18-72918, Fatty’s contention that the immigration judge lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d
887, 889 (9th Cir. 2020) (notice to appear “need not contain time, date, and place
information to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction if such information is
provided before the hearing”).
As to No. 19-71929, Fatty has not raised, and therefore waives, any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). Because this determination is
dispositive, we do not address Fatty’s contentions regarding prima facie eligibility
for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts
and the agency are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.