RAFAEL LAINEZ-URQUILLA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-71714 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL LAINEZ-URQUILLA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-71714 Agency No. A070-075-301 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Rafael Lainez-Urquilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th * 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). Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Lainez-Urquilla does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that his motion to reopen was time- and number-barred, and that he had not shown equitable tolling of the 90-day time limit should apply. See LopezVasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in his opening brief). We reject as unsupported by the record Lainez-Urquilla’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis by failing to fully consider his claim. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening for Lainez-Urquilla to seek adjustment of status, because he does not show a legal or constitutional error that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court can review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 20-71714

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.