Case ID: f-appx_498/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ingrid Urama RAMOS-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72209.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ingrid Urama Ramos-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Ramos-Perez fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that she failed to demonstrate the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline for her untimely motion to reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Ramos-Perez’s contentions concerning her eligibility for asylum and related relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.