DURRANI v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Arif Ali Durrani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding him removable and denying his motion to terminate, his motion to remand, and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 18-72662) and the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen or reconsider (petition No. 19-70546). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo legal claims regarding United States citizenship, Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 2001), and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petitions for review.

As to petition No. 18-72662, in his opening brief, Durrani does not challenge the bases for the agency's removability determination, the denial of his motion to remand, or the bases for denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Durrani's motion to terminate where he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he acquired citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(A). Durrani's contention that the agency violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

As to petition No. 19-70546, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Durrani's motion to reopen or to reconsider, where he did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief or identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1).

All pending motions are denied.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.