Elsa Orellana-Somoza v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA ORELLANA-SOMOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73213
Agency No. A077-129-376
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Orellana-Somoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Orellana-Somoza does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to
the BIA’s dispositive determination that her motion to reopen was untimely. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an
opening brief are waived). Orellana-Somoza’s contention that the BIA failed to
adequately explain its decision is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (what is required is that the BIA adequately considered
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
To the extent Orellana-Somoza challenges the BIA’s decision not to invoke
its sua sponte authority to reopen, we lack jurisdiction over that contention. See
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Orellana-Somoza’s contentions challenging
the BIA’s April 16, 2002, order denying her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because this petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for
review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of
removal.”).
14-73213 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time
with Orellana-Somoza’s opening brief because the court’s review is limited to the
administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of appeals shall
decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal
is based[.]”).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Orellana-Somoza’s
remaining contentions regarding cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-73213 3

-- 3 of 3 --