Case Name: Jarnail 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: 2011-01-06
Citations: 408 F. App'x 30
Docket Number: No. 08-73676
Parties: Jarnail SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 30–31

Head Matter:
Jarnail SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73676.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
Viney K. Gupta, Esquire, Immigration Law Office Appeals, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, CAC-District 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, 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
Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order deny ing his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Singh fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's dispositive determination that he failed to establish due diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline for his untimely motion to reopen. 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Singh'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.