Julian Pineda-Muralles 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIAN PINEDA-MURALLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70415
Agency No. A072-911-232
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Julian Pineda-Muralles, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings and reconsider its previous decision. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70415 2
for review. is governed by is 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss inpart and deny in part
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence
Pineda-Muralles submitted with his motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant
reopening where the evidence presented concerns the same discretionary grounds
involved in the original decision. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-
01 (9th Cir. 2006).
To the extent Pineda-Muralles contends that the BIA abused its discretion by
failing to exercise its authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen his case, we lack
jurisdiction to consider that issue. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
In his opening brief, Pineda-Muralles fails to raise, and therefore has
waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that his motion to reconsider was
untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). In light of
this disposition, we need not reach Pineda-Muralles’s remaining challenges to the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --