Case Name: Naira KARAPETYAN, a.k.a. Armenui Chivchyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-29
Citations: 389 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 08-72100
Parties: Naira KARAPETYAN, a.k.a. Armenui Chivchyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
Naira KARAPETYAN, a.k.a. Armenui Chivchyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72100.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed July 29, 2010.
Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Edward Earl Wig-gers, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Naira Karapetyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008) and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Karapetyan failed to raise any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised in opening brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to her motion to reopen.
To the extent Karapetyan challenges the BIA's May 23, 2006 order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her asylum application, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.