RAUL E. LITONJUA, Jr. v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL E. LITONJUA, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73912
Agency No. A044-374-442
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Raul E. Litonjua, Jr., a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
* 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73912
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
In denying Litonjua’s motion to reopen, the BIA limited its review to
Litonjua’s claim for deferral of removal under CAT because it found that
Litonjua’s motion did not address the underlying particularly serious crime
conviction which rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
In his opening brief, Litonjua does not challenge the BIA’s finding. 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). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Litonjua’s motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Litonjua’s untimely
motion to reopen his claim for deferral of removal under CAT because Litonjua
failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002) (no
abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner did not establish
prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --