ELISEO MOZ-AMAYA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-72126 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELISEO MOZ-AMAYA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 18-72126 20-70069 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-039-013 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Eliseo Moz-Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his second (petition No. 18-72126) and third (petition No. 20-70069) motions to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review. * 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). We do not consider the materials Moz-Amaya references in his opening briefs that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In his opening briefs, Moz-Amaya does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that his second and third motions to reopen are untimely and that he did not establish any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). Moz-Amaya’s requests to terminate proceedings, raised in his opening briefs, are denied. The government’s motion for summary disposition (petition No. 20-70069, Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the questions raised by the petition for review in No. 20-70069 are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard). 2 18-72126 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. Moz-Amaya’s motion for a stay of removal (petition No. 20-70069, Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 18-72126
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.
