ARMANDO LOPEZ BAENA V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 15-70452 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO LOPEZ BAENA; ROSA MARIA RAMIREZ, No. 15-70452 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A095-602-542 A095-602-543 MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Armando Lopez Baena and Rosa Maria Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, * 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). Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not raise, and have therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that they did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico and the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See LopezVasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where they failed to qualify for any exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)–(3). As stated in the court’s May 8, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70452

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.