Bangally Fatty v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 11 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BANGALLY FATTY,                                 Nos. 18-72918
    19-71929
    Petitioner,
    Agency No. A097-119-552
    v.
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,              MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent.
    On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    In these consolidated petitions for review, Bangally Fatty, a native and
    citizen of the Gambia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“BIA”) orders denying his motion to reconsider and terminate and his motion to
    reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
    questions of law. Toor v. Lynch, 
    789 F.3d 1055
    , 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny
    *
    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).
    the petitions for review.
    As to No. 18-72918, Fatty’s contention that the immigration judge lacked
    jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 
    958 F.3d 887
    , 889 (9th Cir. 2020) (notice to appear “need not contain time, date, and place
    information to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction if such information is
    provided before the hearing”).
    As to No. 19-71929, Fatty has not raised, and therefore waives, any
    challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. See Lopez-
    Vasquez v. Holder, 
    706 F.3d 1072
    , 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
    raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). Because this determination is
    dispositive, we do not address Fatty’s contentions regarding prima facie eligibility
    for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts
    and the agency are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
    unnecessary to the results).
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   19-71929
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-72918

Filed Date: 9/11/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/11/2020