Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otoniel Vasquez LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 28, 2004.
    Otoniel Vasquez Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Otoniel Vasquez Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to pursue relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.

Because Vasquez Lopez failed to address how the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, he has waived any challenge to that decision, and we deny the petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996).

Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez Lopez’s challenge to the BIA’s July 3, 2002, order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum because Vasquez Lopez did not timely appeal that decision to this Court. See id. at 1258.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.