NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO MARTINEZ-TORRES, No. 16-72511
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-119-950
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Martinez-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. 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).
Martinez-Torres does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to
the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as time- and number-barred. See Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest
issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). To the extent Martinez-Torres contends
the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his case, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir.
2016).
To the extent Martinez-Torres challenges the BIA’s December 13, 2011
order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider that
contention, because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Torres’ request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
We do not consider the extra-record documentation that Martinez-Torres
submitted with his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(judicial review is
limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.
2010) (stating standard of review for out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-72511