Testo completo
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDI CHI-POOT,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1266
Agency No.
A200-551-364
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Fredi Chi-Poot petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
June 28, 2022 decision denying his motion to reconsider and his motion to
reopen. Chi-Poot did not address this decision or any of its reasoning in his
opening brief. He thus forfeited the opportunity to contest the Board’s decision.
See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). 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
JUL 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-1266
arguments Chi-Poot has presented, moreover, are not properly before this court.
Those arguments concern issues the Board addressed in its November 8, 2019
and January 25, 2021 decisions, which Chi-Poot has not appealed. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(5) (a petition for review is “the sole and exclusive means for judicial
review of an order of removal” entered under the Immigration and Nationality
Act).1
PETITION DENIED.
1 The Board did not, in any event, abuse its discretion in denying Chi-Poot’s
motions. His motion to reconsider was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and his motion to reopen was both untimely, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and number-barred, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). None of the exceptions to the
time or number limitations on motions to reopen apply here. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3).
-- 2 of 2 --