Opinion
No. 07-74684.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 14, 2010.
Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
U.S. Department of Justice, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Saul Greenstein, Esquire, Trial, Tracey McDonald, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A075-314-539.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gurjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Singh fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determinations that the motion to reopen failed to qualify for an exception to the regulatory time and numerical filing limitations, and failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).