Case Name: Luis A. Hernandez SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 668 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 13-72369
Parties: Luis A. Hernandez SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
Luis A. Hernandez SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72369
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 23, 2016
Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Law Offices of Claudia Lopez, Los-Angeles, CA.
Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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
Luis A. Hernandez Santos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his motion to reopen to reissue the IJ's prior decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA's issuance of a summary affir-mance without opinion did not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject' any request Hernandez Santos makes that the court reissue the IJ's January 19, 2012, order.
Hernandez Santos does not argue the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.