Case Name: Budi Torang SIHOMBING, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 11-70501
Parties: Budi Torang SIHOMBING, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Budi Torang SIHOMBING, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70501.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 2, 2012.
Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, TJ.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Sihombing's request for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Budi Torang Sihombing, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen or remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of motions to reopen or to remand. Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 912 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Sihombing contends the BIA erred in denying his request for further consideration of his application for withholding of removal based on a disfavored group analysis. However, Sihombing does not challenge the BIA's dispositive finding that his motion was untimely and that he did not qualify for an exception to the time limitation. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.