MIGUEL GOMEZ-CERVANTES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-70917 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL GOMEZ-CERVANTES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 14-70917 14-72522 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-158-261 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Miguel Gomez-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of both an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen reasonable fear proceedings, and the * 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). Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review. Gomez-Cervantes does not raise in his opening brief, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s grounds for denial of his motion to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). We do not consider Gomez-Cervantes’ contentions in his reply brief regarding the motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“It is well established in this circuit that [t]he general rule is that appellants cannot raise a new issue for the first time in their reply briefs.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original)). We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Cervantes’ contentions regarding whether his reinstatement order is valid, where this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2012). PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-70917

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.