FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LETICIA RODARTE, No. 08-73650
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-867-602
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leticia Rodarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
or reconsider, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings,
Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Rodarte fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that her motion to reconsider was untimely.
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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodarte’s motion to reopen,
because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted and acted within its broad
discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening.
See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Rodarte failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, we are not persuaded that Rodarte’s removal results in the
deprivation of her children’s rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d
1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005).
2 08-73650
Rodarte’s remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-73650