- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rodriguez v. Garland
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-191-194
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Braiyan Adrian Vejar Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the 1 Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Vejar Rodriguez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, and cancellation of removal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vejar Rodriguez's motion to remand to reassess his eligibility for cancellation of removal on the ground that the new evidence submitted was not likely to change the outcome. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (providing that a motion to reopen will not be granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements have been satisfied); see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (court has jurisdiction to review the motion to reopen where "the evidence submitted addresses a hardship ground so distinct from that considered previously as to make the motion to reopen a request for new relief").
We reject as unsupported by the record Vejar Rodriguez's contention that 2 the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion to remand.
The stay of removal remains in effect until the issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
Alert