N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IM AD AB OUD; e t a l.,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71199 Age n c y Nos. A098-515-824

A098-150-502 A098-150-503 A098-150-504 A098-150-505 A098-150-506
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 De c e m

be r 8, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HUM E TEWA, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 12 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Dia ne J. Hum e t e wa , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion.Im a d, R odina , Ha nin, Shirin, Na d i n, a

nd M aron Aboud (c olle c tive l y , the Abouds) pe tition for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (B IA) orde r de ny ing the ir se c ond m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings a nd to re issue its prior de c ision de ny ing c e rtific ation. 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Mata
v . Ly nc h , 135 S. C t. 2150, 2154–55 (2015). The B IA de nie d the Abouds’ se c ond m otion to re ope n on the ground tha t it
wa s tim e - a

nd num b e r-barre d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(A), (C ); 8 C
. F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(2). The Abouds c ha lle nge this ruling sole ly on the ground tha

t the B IA should ha

v e e q uita bly tolle d those lim ita

t ions. W e la c k jurisdic tion to
c onside r this a

rgum e nt, howe ve r, be c a

use the Abouds fa ile d to e xha ust it be fore the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C i r. 2004)

. The Abouds did not e xpre ssly a sk the B IA to e xe rc ise its e q uita ble powe rs to e xc use the
a pplic a ble tim e and num

be r bars, nor did the ir m o tion im plic itly ra ise this
argum e nt by

putting “ pre c i se ly those [fa c t s] ne e d e d

to support a

n e quita b le tolling
argum e nt” be fore the B IA. Soc op–Gonzale z v . IN S , 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba

nc ). Nor did theB IA a ddre ss or e ve n m e ntion e q uita ble tolling,

1 The B IA’ s orde r a lso dismisse d the Abouds’ a ppe a l of the Im

m igrat ion Judge ’ s de nia l of the ir first m o tion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. TheAbouds have wa ive d a

ny c ha lle nge to tha

t ruling by

fa iling to raise an a

rgum e nt in the ir ope ning brie f. Se e Arpin v . Santa C lara Valle y Transp. Age n c

y , 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C ir. 2001). 2furthe r m aking it c le ar that the Abouds’ m o t ion fa ile d to put the issue “ be fore the B IA suc h tha

t it ha d the opportunity

to c orre c t its e rror.” Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 786 F.3d 789, 793 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Figue roa v . Muk a se y , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C ir. 2008)). 2 PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2 Sinc e we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r e quita ble tolling, a

nd the Abouds’ se c o nd m otion to re o pe n is tim e - and num be r-barre d, se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1229a (c )(7)(A), (C ); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), we do not a ddre ss the B IA’ s a lte rnative c onc l usion tha t the Abouds fa ile d

to c om ply with there quire m e n ts of Matte r of Lozada , 19 I & N De c . 637, 639 (B IA 1988). 3