Court Opinion

ID: 9394184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 17:01:47.483967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.883914
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            MAY 12 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO ROJAS JIMENEZ,                         No.   21-1284

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A216-434-326

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 10, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Alejandro Rojas Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal

from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)’s decision that declined to terminate removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here,

      *
             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).
the BIA issues its own opinion, this Court reviews “only the BIA’s decision,

except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Flores-Lopez v.

Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the parties are familiar with

the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here. We

deny the petition for review.

      The BIA’s sole basis for dismissing Rojas Jimenez’s appeal was that he

conceded removability through his counsel. Rojas Jimenez does not contest this in

his petition for review or contend that the BIA was incorrect in its holding.

Accordingly, he has waived any argument challenging the BIA’s decision. See

Escobar Santos v. Garland, 4 F.4th 762, 764 n.1 (9th Cir. 2021) (arguments not

raised in petitioner’s opening brief are waived).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           2