DANIEL IRAHETA, AKA Danie Iraheta Iraheta v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL IRAHETA, AKA Danie Iraheta
Iraheta,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73405
Agency No. A026-763-474
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Iraheta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
* 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73405
part the petition for review.
Iraheta does not raise, and therefore waives any challenge to, the agency’s
denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. 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). Because timeliness is dispositive, to the extent Iraheta
challenges the agency’s denial of reopening for failure to show prima facie
eligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not address that contention. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
the results).
To the extent Iraheta challenges the agency’s denials of asylum and related
relief and relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
in his previous deportation proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider those
contentions as this petition is untimely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --