Case Name: Cenobio Evaristo SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, a.k.a. Cenobio Evaristo Santiago, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 440 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 09-70305
Parties: Cenobio Evaristo SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, a.k.a. Cenobio Evaristo Santiago, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Cenobio Evaristo SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, a.k.a. Cenobio Evaristo Santiago, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70305.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 22, 2011.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Cenobio Evaristo Santiago-Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Santiago-Santiago fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely filed. 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); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.