Chi-Poot v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDI CHI-POOT, No. 22-1266 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-551-364 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Fredi Chi-Poot petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ June 28, 2022 decision denying his motion to reconsider and his motion to reopen. Chi-Poot did not address this decision or any of its reasoning in his opening brief. He thus forfeited the opportunity to contest the Board’s decision. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013). 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). arguments Chi-Poot has presented, moreover, are not properly before this court. Those arguments concern issues the Board addressed in its November 8, 2019 and January 25, 2021 decisions, which Chi-Poot has not appealed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (a petition for review is “the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal” entered under the Immigration and Nationality Act).1 PETITION DENIED. 1 The Board did not, in any event, abuse its discretion in denying Chi-Poot’s motions. His motion to reconsider was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and his motion to reopen was both untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and number-barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). None of the exceptions to the time or number limitations on motions to reopen apply here. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3). 2 22-1266