ADEMOLA ADESANYA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71935 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADEMOLA IBUKNOLUWA ADESANYA, pro se, AKA Ibuknol Adesanya, No. 14-71935 Agency No. A029-237-836 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Ademola Ibuknoluwa Adesanya, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his * 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). second motion to reopen deportation proceedings and his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Adesanya does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determinations that his February 10, 2014, motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred, and that his motion to reconsider the BIA’s December 13, 2013, order was untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief). Accordingly, we need not reach Adesanya’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief or his due process claim. We deny Adesanya’s motions to take judicial notice and for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 16), and for an extension of time to comply with future orders (Docket Entry Nos. 28 and 29). We deny his motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 24) as unnecessary. We deny his motions regarding Nos. 15-16053 and 15-17064 (Docket Entry Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31) as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71935

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.