Case Name: Medarlo U. BARONGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: Nos. 05-71257, 05-72632
Parties: Medarlo U. BARONGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
Medarlo U. BARONGAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-71257, 05-72632.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
Stuart I. Folinsky, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated petitions, Medarlo U. Barongan, native and citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to continue and denying his motion to remand, No. 05-71257, and the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider, No. 05-72632. We have jurisdiction under by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions for review.
In his reply brief, Barongan changes his request for relief because his is not eligible to adjust under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 because of the impending dissolution of his marriage. We decline to reach the merits of his newly raised estoppel argument. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118,120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (declining to reach issue raised for the first time in the reply brief).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.