Rafael Vazquez-Sienra v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL VAZQUEZ-SIENRA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 16-73219
17-71137
Agency No. A200-884-963
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Rafael Vazquez-Sienra, a native
and citizen of Uruguay, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
ordering him removed, and denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
* 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).
FILED
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73219 & 17-71137
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
Vazquez-Sienra has not raised, and therefore has waived, any challenge to
the BIA’s September 2, 2016, order dismissing his direct appeal. 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 Vazquez-Sienra’s motion to
reopen as a matter of discretion, where it considered both the positive and negative
factors presented in his case and determined he was not entitled to a favorable
exercise of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The Board has discretion to deny
a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for
relief.”); Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA must consider and
weigh favorable and unfavorable factors in determining whether to deny a motion
to reopen proceedings on discretionary grounds). We reject Vazquez-Sienra’s
contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning or consider his
contentions and relevant evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006)
(petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73219 & 17-71137
Because the discretionary determination is dispositive, we do not address
Vazquez-Sienra’s contentions regarding hardship to his mother. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to reach non-dispositive issues).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --