Case Name: Majig MAAKHUU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-03
Citations: 584 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: Nos. 12-70609, 12-72364, 12-74101
Parties: Majig MAAKHUU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
Majig MAAKHUU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 12-70609, 12-72364, 12-74101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
Marina Alexandrovich, Esquire, Law Offices of Marina Alexandrovich, Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
Matthew Albert Connelly, OIL, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated cases, Majig Maakhuu, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") (No. 12-70609), denying his motion to reopen (No. 12-72364), and denying his motion to reconsider/reopen (No. 12-74101). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and we review de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.
Maakhuu does not make any arguments challenging the BIA's dismissal of his direct appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review in No. 12-70609.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its June 25, 2012, order denying Maak-huu's motion to reopen because Maakhuu did not show the psychological report he submitted with the motion was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(1); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (evidence capable of being discovered at time of hearing cannot serve as basis for motion to reopen). We reject Maakhuu's contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying his motion. We also reject Maakhuu's contention that the agency violated due process by not holding a competency hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir.2009). In light of our conclusions, we do not reach Maakhuu's challenges to the other reasons the BIA identified for denying relief. Thus, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 12-72364.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in its November 15, 2012, order because, insofar as the BIA treated Maakhuu's motion to reconsider as a motion to. reopen, Maakhuu did not show that the second'psychological report he submitted was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Goel, 490 F.3d at 738. Maakhuu does not make any other arguments challenging the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. Thus, we deny the petition for review in No. 12-74101.
NO. 12-70609: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NO. 12-72364: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
NO. 12-74101: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.