Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0750-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Avetis BAGHRAMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72296.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Asbet Issakhanian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Avetis Baghramyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief Baghramyan fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that his motion to reopen was both time-and number-barred, and that he failed to establish the due diligence necessary for tolling of those bars. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived); Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).

As the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Baghramyan’s other 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.