Minglong Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINGLONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70236
Agency No. A076-210-555
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Minglong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denials of motions to reconsider and reopen. Mohammed v.
FILED
OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion as untimely,
where he filed the motion more than a year after his final order of removal. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2),(C)(2) (a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days
of a final order of removal and a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a
final order of removal). Li does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he
failed to satisfy any exception to the motions deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives a contention
by failing to raise it).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s unexhausted contention that the
immigration judge failed to advise him about voluntary departure. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the agency).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Li’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-70236 2

-- 2 of 2 --