Case Name: Ignacio AGUILAR-IXTAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 631 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 14-70361
Parties: Ignacio AGUILAR-IXTAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 493–493

Head Matter:
Ignacio AGUILAR-IXTAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70361.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Henry Cruz, Rios & Cruz, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
John Beadle Holt, Esq., Oil, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Ignacio Aguilar-Ixtas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion-to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Aguilar-Ixtas did not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA's denial of his motion as untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief are waived).
The record does not support Aguilar-Ixtas' contention that the BIA failed to consider the correct basis for his hardship claim, where the BIA's decision evaluated hardship "upon remaining in this country or upon returning" to Mexico.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.