Jose Kahin Resendiz-Garcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE KAHIN RESENDIZ-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72803
Agency No. A070-764-583
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Kahin Resendiz-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.
* 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
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72803
2016). We deny the petition for review.
Resendiz-Garcia’s statements in the opening brief that the BIA erred in
denying his motion to reopen are not supported by argument. Thus, he has
abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determinations that he conceded
removability pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, his motion to reopen was untimely, he failed to submit a
supporting application for relief with the motion to reopen as required by 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1), and he did not demonstrate an exceptional situation to warrant sua
sponte reopening. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.
1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned.”). We do not address Resendiz-Garcia’s contentions as to his statutory
eligibility for cancellation of removal because the BIA did not deny his motion to
reopen on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Resendiz-Garcia’s contentions that the immigration judge and BIA lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)
are foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) and
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72803
On March 27, 2018, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --