FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK EJEDAWE, a.k.a. Patrick Nos. 08-71826
Elliot, a.k.a. Patrick Omo, 09-72543
Petitioner, Agency No. A027-918-837
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge and an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Patrick Ejedawe, a native and
citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final
order of removal and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
*
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).
his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part both
petitions for review.
In No. 08-71826, Ejedawe fails to raise any contentions concerning the IJ’s
June 6, 2000, removal order and has therefore waived any challenge to that order.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent
Ejedawe seeks to challenge the BIA’s March 23, 2006, removal order through this
petition for review, we lack jurisdiction to review his contentions. See Andia v.
Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Ejedawe v.
Gonzales, 234 F. App’x 594 (9th Cir. 2007).
In No. 09-72543, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ejedawe’s
second motion to reopen where the motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Ejedawe failed to establish changed circumstances in Nigeria
to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Ejedawe’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on
his motion to reopen, made an improper adverse credibility determination, failed to
consider his country conditions evidence, and failed to consider all of his claims
for relief are not supported by the record. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review
2 08-71826, 09-72543
the BIA’s decision not to reopen Ejedawe’s proceedings sua sponte. Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-71826, 09-72543