N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JULIO ENRIQUE M EDINA-HER RER A, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72991 Age n c y No. A072-991-704 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Julio Enrique

M e dina -He rre ra , a native and c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re c onside r and to re ope n proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion the 

# FIL ED JUN 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de nia l of a

m otion to re c o nside r and re ope n , a nd re vie w de novo que stions of la w . Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt and dismi ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing M e dina -He rre ra ’ s m otion to re c o nside r, whe re the m otion fa ile d to a lle g e any e rror of la

w or fa c t in theB IA’ s prior orde r de ny i ng his e arlie r m otion to re ope n, s e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(b)(1) (“ A m otion to re c onside r sha l l sta te the re a sons for them o tion by spe c ify ing the e rrors of fa c t or la

w in the prior [B IA] de c ision a nd sha ll be supporte d by

pe rtine nt a uthority .” ), and wa s ba se d sole ly on ne w le ga l a

rgum e nts tha

t c o uld ha ve be e n ra ise d in his pre vious m otion, se e Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a t 792 n. 8 (“ a

m otion to re c o nside r doe s not pre se nt ne w la w or fa c ts, but ra

the r c ha lle nge s de t e rm inations of la w a n d fa c t m a de by the B IA” ). C ontra ry to M e dina -He rre ra ’ s c o nte ntion, theB IA did not e rr in c onc luding that the im m igration judgeprope rly

a ssum e d jurisdic tion ove r M e dina -He rre ra ’ s in a bse ntia de porta tion proc e e d ings. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 3.14(a ) (1994) (“ Jurisdic t ion ve sts, a nd proc e e dings be fore an Im m igration Judgec om

m e nc e , whe n a

c ha rging doc um e nt is file d with theOffic e of the Im m igration Judgeby

the Se rvic e .” ). M e dina -He rre ra fa i le d to e xha ust his c onte ntions tha

t he did not re c e i ve prope r notic e of his he aring a nd tha t his in a b se ntia de porta

tion orde r wa s de fe c t ive 1 3 - 7 2 9 9 1 2be c a

use it re fe rre d to a he aring on them e rits ra t he r tha n a m a ste r c a le nda

r he aring. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (thec ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r le ga l c la im s not pre s e nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y ). In his ope ning brie f, M e dina -He rre ra fa ils to ra i se , a

nd the re fore ha s wa ive d, any c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n to a pply for ne w re lie f a s untim e l y . S

e e Lope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th C ir. 2013) (a pe titione r wa ive s a

c onte ntion by

fa iling to raise it in the ope ning brie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 2 9 9 1 3