Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raul E. LITONJUA, Jr., Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Raul E. Litonjua, Jr., a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
In denying Litonjua’s motion to reopen, the BIA limited its review to Litonjua’s claim for deferral of removal under CAT because it found that Litonjua’s motion did not address the underlying particularly serious crime conviction which rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. In his opening brief, Litonjua does not challenge the BIA’s finding. 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). Thus, we deny the petition as to Litonjua’s motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Litonjua’s untimely motion to reopen his claim for deferral of removal under CAT because Litonjua failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-73912
Decided: July 13, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)