Court Opinion

ID: 808750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-09-18 19:53:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:31.801514
License: Public Domain

FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 18 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a.                   No. 10-73474
Humberto Rodriguez,
                                                  Agency No. A097-708-506
               Petitioner,

  v.                                              MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted September 10, 2012 **

Before:        WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Luis Humberto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,

321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

      In his opening brief, Rodriguez fails to address, and therefore has waived

any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that the motion to reopen

was untimely. 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).

      Because the BIA’s untimeliness determinations is dispositive, we do not

reach Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                       10-73474