FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDY DIAZ-RUANO, No. 09-73713
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-022-293
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rudy Diaz-Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, de Martinez v.
*
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).
Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Diaz-Ruano has waived any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive
determination that he failed to establish prejudice because his failure to depart
within his voluntary departure period rendered him ineligible for cancellation of
removal. 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);
see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its authority
to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
824 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Diaz-Ruano’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-73713