Rafael Garcia-Franco v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL GARCIA-FRANCO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72512
Agency No. A095-310-031
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Garcia-Franco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying as untimely
filed and numerically barred, petitioner’s second motion to reopen removal
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72512 2
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny
the petition for review.
Garcia-Franco contends that he merits cancellation of removal relief because
his United States citizen children will experience the requisite hardship if he is
removed to Mexico.
By not raising any arguments concerning the BIA’s dispositive
determination that his second motion to reopen was numerically-barred and
untimely, Garcia-Franco has waived any challenge to that determination. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Franco’s second motion to
reopen as numerically-barred and untimely where the motion was filed over six
years after the BIA’s final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --