Jose Clemente Flores-Flores v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CLEMENTE FLORES-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72977
Agency No. A078-455-657
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 Clemente Flores-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se 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 BIA’s denial of a motion
* 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 20-72977
to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores-Flores’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than nine years after the order of
removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Flores-Flores did not
argue an exception to the time limitation applied. We lack jurisdiction to consider
Flores-Flores’s contentions that the filing deadline should be equitably tolled and
that he established changed country conditions to qualify for an exception to the
filing deadline. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Flores-Flores’s contentions as
to the BIA’s determinations that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for
cancellation of removal and that he failed to provide evidence that was material
and previously unavailable at the time of his prior hearing. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Flores-Flores does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the
BIA’s determination that he failed to set forth a legal basis for termination of
proceedings. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72977
argued in the opening brief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --