Court Opinion

ID: 2802810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-21 22:03:44.958343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:38.689743
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 21 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUBAS SHARMA,                                    No. 12-71889

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A078-317-361

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 13, 2015**

Before:        LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       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

          *
             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).
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.

                                         2                                   12-71889