FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEDA MARGARYAN, Nos. 07-71247
08-70665
Petitioner,
v. Agency No. A096-066-839
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Seda Margaryan, a native and
citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 07-71247), and denying her motion to
reopen (No. 08-70665). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny the petitions for review.
In her opening brief, Margaryan does not challenge the denial of her asylum
claim as untimely, the dispositive adverse credibility determination based on
testimonial inconsistencies with her original declaration, or the denial of her CAT
claim. Accordingly, Margaryan does not challenge the BIA’s March 22, 2007,
order dismissing her underlying appeal. 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Margaryan’s motion to
reopen because she filed it over eight months after the BIA’s March 22, 2007,
dismissal of her underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Margaryan
failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling due to her lack of diligence, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (noting that equitable tolling is available “when a
petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or
error”).
2 07-71247
No. 07-71247: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 08-70665: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-71247