Narrative Opinion Summary
Hui Zhao Jiang, a Chinese national, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that denied his motion to reconsider. The jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The petition is partially denied and partially dismissed. The petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA's finding that his motion was untimely by failing to address it in his opening brief, as per Martinez-Serrano v. INS. Additionally, any challenge to the BIA's May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue is outside the court's jurisdiction due to untimeliness, following Singh v. INS. The remaining arguments presented by the petitioner lack merit. The petition for review is thus denied in part and dismissed in part, with the disposition not intended for publication and not serving as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court establishes jurisdiction over the appeal based on statutory provisions governing judicial review of immigration decisions.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarifies that the disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is thus denied in part and dismissed in part, with the disposition not intended for publication and not serving as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard for Meritless Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the remaining arguments presented by the petitioner to be without merit.
Reasoning: The remaining arguments presented by the petitioner lack merit.
Timeliness and Jurisdictional Limitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's order denying the motion to reissue due to the petitioner's failure to file timely, following the precedent set in Singh v. INS.
Reasoning: Any challenge to the BIA's May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue is outside the court's jurisdiction due to untimeliness, following Singh v. INS.
Waiver of Argument by Failure to Addresssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner waived any challenge to the timeliness of his motion by not addressing it in his opening brief, aligning with precedent set in Martinez-Serrano v. INS.
Reasoning: The petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA's finding that his motion was untimely by failing to address it in his opening brief, as per Martinez-Serrano v. INS.