Nemorio Mendiola-Ibarra v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60369 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-60369 Document: 00513483422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60369 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 27, 2016 NEMORIO MENDIOLA-IBARRA, Petitioner Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A093 074 034 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nemorio Mendiola-Ibarra (Mendiola) petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen or reconsider its earlier dismissal of his appeal as untimely. The Respondent has filed a motion for summary disposition of the appeal. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60369 Document: 00513483422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2016 No. 15-60369 The BIA determined that whether construed as a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, Mendiola’s motion was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). It also determined that Mendiola was required to file his motion to reopen with the IJ rather than the BIA. See Matter of Lopez, 22 I & N Dec. 16, 17 (BIA 1998). Mendiola makes no argument challenging any of these determinations by the BIA. Accordingly, any such challenge is deemed abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Mendiola’s assertion that he may qualify for cancellation of removal is raised for the first time in this appeal. Accordingly, it is not properly before this court. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009). Mendiola’s petition for review is DENIED. The Respondent’s motion for summary disposition of the petition for review in lieu of filing a brief is GRANTED. 2

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.