Kakhaberi Sharabidze v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAKHABERI SHARABIDZE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70073
Agency No. A079-580-213
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Kakhaberi Sharabidze, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
* 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70073
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sharabidze’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 11 years after the order of removal
became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he has
not established that any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline
applies, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii)
(exception to the filing deadline where the motion to reopen is “[a]greed upon by
all parties and jointly filed”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte where Sharabidze does not raise a legal or constitutional
error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir.
2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.”).
Sharabidze does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s determination that the
Notice to Appear did contain the time and place of the initial hearing and thus
reopening was not warranted under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70073
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --