ELBA ALVAREZ OLMOS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71724 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELBA RUBY ALVAREZ OLMOS, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71724 Agency No. A088-216-353 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Elba Ruby Alvarez Olmos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida * 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). v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Alvarez Olmos has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) bars her from seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s order denying her previous motion to reconsider. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). To the extent Alvarez Olmos seeks review of the BIA’s March 9, 2015, order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider those contentions because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (the filing of a subsequent motion to reconsider does not affect the finality or reviewability of a previous order of removal). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-71724

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.