Nabor Arturo Jimenez- Monjaras v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NABOR ARTURO JIMENEZ-
MONJARAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71765
Agency No. A205-257-398
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nabor Arturo Jimenez-Monjaras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
request for administrative closure and dismissing his appeal from an immigration
* 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
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71765
judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Jimenez-Monjaras does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the dispositive discretionary determination that he did not show
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative for purposes of
cancellation of removal. 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 administrative closure. See
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891-93 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding the
non-exhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA
2012), provides a standard for reviewing administrative closure decisions).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Jimenez-Monjaras’s remaining
contentions regarding administrative closure. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to
the results they reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --