MEMORANDUM **
Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and terminate or remand proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIAs denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Guzman-Alcocer does not raise any challenge to the BIAs determination that reopening for termination of proceedings was not warranted. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Guzman-Alcocers motion to reopen and remand to adjust status where it was filed more than two years after the order of removal became final. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guzman-Alcocers contentions regarding equitable tolling. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We also lack jurisdiction to review the agencys decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
As stated in the courts September 5, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.