Rafael Lainez-Urquilla v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL LAINEZ-URQUILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71714
Agency No. A070-075-301
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Lainez-Urquilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th
* 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
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71714
Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Lainez-Urquilla does not challenge the BIA’s
determinations that his motion to reopen was time- and number-barred, and that he
had not shown equitable tolling of the 90-day time limit should apply. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner
waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in his opening brief).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lainez-Urquilla’s contention that the
BIA erred in its analysis by failing to fully consider his claim.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening for
Lainez-Urquilla to seek adjustment of status, because he does not show a legal or
constitutional error that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court can review BIA decisions denying sua
sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind
the decision for legal or constitutional error).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --