Daniel Simorangkir v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Good Law
481 F. App'x 333
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 15, 201210-70075California311 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Rumaja Simorangkir, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision, and denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Simorangkir fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he does not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Simorangkir was not entitled to reopening in order to apply for adjustment of status where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for that relief because he did not maintain continuously a lawful status after entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.