eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-06

Galumashvili v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 579 ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEVAN GALUMASHVILI,                              No. 07-73807
Petitioner,                       Agency No. A076-373-429
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Levan Galumashvili, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions to
reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider,
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Galumashvili’s motion to
reopen because Galumashvili failed to present sufficient evidence of changed
circumstances in Georgia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and
number limitations for filing motions to reopen. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii);
Malty v. Ashcroft,
    381 F.3d 942
    , 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . .
whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously
did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to grant Galumashvili’s
motion to reopen sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS,
    303 F.3d 1153
    , 1159 (9th Cir.
2002).
Galumashvili has waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying the
motion to reconsider by failing to raise any arguments in his opening brief related
to the BIA’s determination that the motion was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS,
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996); Bazuaye v. INS,
    79 F.3d 118
    , 120 (9th
2                                    07-73807
Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (declining to reach issue raised for the first time in the
reply brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3                                     07-73807