Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dario Ico SAN AGUSTIN; Lucila Calalang San Agustin, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72910.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    Deborah Karapetian, Law Offices of Deborah L. Karapetian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    Julie M. Iversen, OIL, 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, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dario Ico San Agustín and Lucila Cala-lang San Agustín, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that they failed to demonstrate due diligence warranting equitable tolling of their untimely motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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