Wendy Mejia-Pena v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENDY CAROLINA MEJIA-PENA, No. 17-73372 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-085-734 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Wendy Carolina Mejia-Pena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reissue its prior decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 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).  In her opening brief Mejia-Pena does not challenge, and therefore waives, the BIA’s denial of her motion to reissue its prior decision. See Lopez-Vasquez 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to her motion to reissue. We lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia-Pena’s contentions as to the merits of her asylum application and related relief because she did not timely petition for review the BIA’s order denying that relief. See Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. . . . This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-73372