GERARDO RIOS ZAMORA, AKA Gerardo Rios-Zamora v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO RIOS ZAMORA, AKA
Gerardo Rios-Zamora,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70859
Agency No. A070-967-063
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Rios Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
* 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
JAN 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70859
and denying his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
terminate, and we review de novo questions of law. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d
725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rios Zamora’s request to
terminate proceedings, where his contention that the immigration judge lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d
887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from Notice to Appear
can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
In his opening brief, Rios Zamora does not raise any challenge to the
agency’s determinations that he did not establish eligibility for cancellation of
removal, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
As stated in the court’s June 14, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --