TERESA MARIN-HERRERA, AKA Veraneca Herrera-Munquia, AKA Teresa Marin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA MARIN-HERRERA, AKA
Veraneca Herrera-Munquia, AKA Teresa
Marin,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72293
Agency No. A205-647-835
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Marin-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
* 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 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72293
application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand.
Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for
review.
In her opening brief, Marin-Herrera does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that she failed to
demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying
relatives. 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).
Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Marin-Herrera’s cancellation of
removal claim.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marin-Herrera’s motion to
remand, where she submitted evidence of a medical condition she has had since
she was 16 years old and which she did not establish could not be treated in
Mexico. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (the
BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for
the relief sought); Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (motions to reopen must be supported by evidence that “is
material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at
the former hearing”)); see also Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72293
Cir. 2008) (“The formal requirements of a motion to remand and a motion to
reopen are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Cheneau v. Garland, 997
F.3d 916, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2021).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --