NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDI CHI-POOT, No. 22-1266 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-551-364 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Fredi Chi-Poot petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 28, 2022 decision denying his motion to reconsider and his motion to reopen. Chi-Poot did not address this decision or any of its reasoning in his opening brief. He thus forfeited the opportunity to contest the Board’s decision.

See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). The

* 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). arguments Chi-Poot has presented, moreover, are not properly before this court.

Those arguments concern issues the Board addressed in its November 8, 2019 and January 25, 2021 decisions, which Chi-Poot has not appealed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (a petition for review is “the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal” entered under the Immigration and Nationality Act).1 PETITION DENIED.

The Board did not, in any event, abuse its discretion in denying Chi-Poot’s motions. His motion to reconsider was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and his motion to reopen was both untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and number-barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). None of the exceptions to the time or number limitations on motions to reopen apply here. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3).

2 22-1266