U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2020

Adin Linares-Gonzalez v. William Barr

Adin Linares-Gonzalez v. William Barr
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 26, 2020

Adin Linares-Gonzalez v. William Barr

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADIN LINARES-GONZALEZ; SINDY No. 14-73814 AGUILAR-DELINARES, AKA Sindy Aguilar De Linares, Agency Nos. A095-783-915 A095-784-047 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 24, 2020**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Adin Linares-Gonzalez and Sindy Aguilar-Delinares, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have

* 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). jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners do not adequately challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and based on a material change in country conditions. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Petitioners also do not challenge the BIA’s denial of their request to reopen pursuant to its sua sponte authority, or the BIA’s denial of their request for voluntary departure. Id. Thus, these issues are waived.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ only specific contention that their proceedings should be reopened so that they can seek prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 14-73814

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.