Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julio Cesar ARAUJO-QUINONEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 10-71225.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 23, 2012.
    Julio Cesar Araujo-Quinonez, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Paul Cygnarowicz, Trial, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Cesar Araujo-Quinonez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Araujo-Quinonez’s motion to reopen due to lack of notice where the record reflects that Araujo-Quinonez’s counsel of record was served with the hearing notice. See id. (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to alien).

The agency denied Araujo-Quinonez’s motion to reopen due to “exceptional circumstances” as untimely. He failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen on this basis. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

Araujo-Quinonez’s contention regarding oral warnings fails because former INA § 242(B)(e)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1996), pertains to eligibility for relief, not reopening.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.