Court Opinion

ID: 9409019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 17:01:14.243159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.406603
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 14 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDI CHI-POOT,                                 No. 22-1266
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A200-551-364
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted July 12, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Fredi Chi-Poot petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

June 28, 2022 decision denying his motion to reconsider and his motion to

reopen. Chi-Poot did not address this decision or any of its reasoning in his

opening brief. He thus forfeited the opportunity to contest the Board’s decision.

See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). The

      *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
arguments Chi-Poot has presented, moreover, are not properly before this court.

Those arguments concern issues the Board addressed in its November 8, 2019

and January 25, 2021 decisions, which Chi-Poot has not appealed. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) (a petition for review is “the sole and exclusive means for judicial

review of an order of removal” entered under the Immigration and Nationality

Act).1

         PETITION DENIED.

1
  The Board did not, in any event, abuse its discretion in denying Chi-Poot’s
motions. His motion to reconsider was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and his motion to reopen was both untimely, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and number-barred, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). None of the exceptions to the
time or number limitations on motions to reopen apply here. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3).

                                        2                                   22-1266