Case Name: Luis Humberto RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Humberto Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-18
Citations: 479 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 10-73474
Parties: Luis Humberto RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Humberto Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
Luis Humberto RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Humberto Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73474.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 18, 2012.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Hillel Ryder Smith, 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: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Luis Humberto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Rodriguez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. 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).
Because the BIA's untimeliness determinations is dispositive, we do not reach Rodriguez's 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.