Case Name: Subas SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-21
Citations: 604 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 12-71889
Parties: Subas SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circúit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Subas SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71889.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 21, 2015.
Kevin Holger Knutson, Esquire, Kevin H. Knutson, Attorney at Law, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Oil, Jane Tracey Schaffner, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circúit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Subas Sharma, a native and citizen of Nepal, 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 BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
In denying Sharma's motion to reopen, the BIA determined the evidence he presented was inherently not believable and thus, there was no adequate basis for granting the untimely motion. Sharma does not challenge the BIA's dispositive finding that his evidence was inherently unbelievable. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.