Jaqueline Maria Molina v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAQUELINE MARIA MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73054
Agency No. A074-800-648
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Jaqueline Maria Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reconsider and motion to
reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed
* 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73054
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Molina has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of her motion to
reconsider the IJ’s denial of reopening as untimely. See Diego v. Sessions, 857
F.3d 1005, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that issues not “specifically and
distinctly argued and raised” in an opening brief are waived (citation omitted)).
Likewise, Molina has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that her
motion, construed as a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel,
is untimely and she failed to show due diligence for equitable tolling of the
180-day filing deadline. Id.; see also Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th
Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely
filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien
exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen sua
sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Molina’s remaining contentions
regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73054
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --