Armando Lopez Baena; Rosa Maria Ramirez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO LOPEZ BAENA; ROSA
MARIA RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70452
Agency Nos. A095-602-542
A095-602-543
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Armando Lopez Baena and Rosa Maria Ramirez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their 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,
* 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
FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70452
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and deny the petition for
review.
Petitioners do not raise, and have therefore waived, any challenge to the
BIA’s determination that they did not establish changed country conditions in
Mexico and the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where they failed to qualify for any exception to the filing
deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)–(3).
As stated in the court’s May 8, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --