Case Name: Manjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-73218
Parties: Manjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
Manjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2018
Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Manjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Singh fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's dispositive determination that his motion to reopen was untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Singh's remaining challenges to the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen.
Singh's contention that the BIA should have remanded his case to the immigration judge in 2006 while his second visa petition was pending is without merit because he did not request that the BIA remand for that purpose until 2011.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.