Anibal Varedes-Huano v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANIBAL VAREDES-HUANO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 17-70851
17-72836
Agency No. A070-934-910
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Anibal Varedes-Huano, a native
and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based
on ineffective assistance of counsel, his motion to reopen and reissue the BIA’s
* 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
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70851/17-72836
2014 decision, and his motion to reconsider the denial of the first motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Varedes-Huano’s motions to
reopen as untimely, where they were both filed more than 90 days after his final
administrative order, and he has not shown he qualifies for any regulatory or
statutory exception to the filing deadline or number bar. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i),(iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). To the extent Varedes-
Huano contends he is entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline and number
bar, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
Varedes-Huano does not raise, and therefore waives any challenge to, the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an
opening brief are waived).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not address Varedes-
Huano’s contentions regarding any ineffective assistance of counsel or compliance
with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA
1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70851/17-72836
the agency are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --