BRYANT ESCOBAR, AKA Brayan Otoniel Escobar, AKA Ramos Escobar v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYANT ESCOBAR, AKA Brayan Otoniel
Escobar, AKA Ramos Escobar,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72055
Agency No. A095-023-071
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Bryant Escobar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reconsider
the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
* 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
MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-72055
1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reconsider or reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and
we deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Escobar raises to the BIA’s
January 30, 2013, order dismissing his appeal from an IJ’s denial of his first
motion to reopen because Escobar’s petition for review was not timely as to that
order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Escobar’s motion to
reconsider where Escobar failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify
errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th
Cir. 2004).
In his opening brief, Escobar does not raise any arguments challenging the
BIA’s May 10, 2013, denial of his second motion to reopen. See Corro-Barragan
v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in
opening brief resulted in waiver).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-72055
Finally, we deny Escobar’s request for fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --