Case Name: Marine AVETISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 400 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 08-72547
Parties: Marine AVETISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
Marine AVETISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72547.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Kristen A. Giuffreda Chapman, Barry J. Pettinato, Monica Antoun, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Marine Avetisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Avetisyan fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's dispositive determination that she failed to demonstrate due diligence. 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.