NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRYANT ESCOBAR, AKA Brayan Otoniel No. 13-72055 Escobar, AKA Ramos Escobar, Agency No. A095-023-071 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Bryant Escobar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reconsider the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § * 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).

1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Escobar raises to the BIA’s January 30, 2013, order dismissing his appeal from an IJ’s denial of his first motion to reopen because Escobar’s petition for review was not timely as to that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Escobar’s motion to reconsider where Escobar failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004).

In his opening brief, Escobar does not raise any arguments challenging the BIA’s May 10, 2013, denial of his second motion to reopen. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

2 13-72055 Finally, we deny Escobar’s request for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-72055