Nasim Naif Majdoub v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NASIM NAIF MAJDOUB,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 05-76191
06-70188
Agency No. A078-188-041
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Nasim Naif Majdoub, a native of
Palestine and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider (No. 05-76191) and his
motion to reopen (No. 06-70188) proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RA/Research 05-76191 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a
motion to reopen and reconsider. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th
Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005). In No. 05-76191, we
dismiss the petition for review, and in No. 06-70188, we deny in part and dismiss
in part the petition for review.
With respect to petition No. 05-76191, lack jurisdiction to consider
Majdoub’s contentions regarding the BIA’s June 9, 2005 order, because this
petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003). In Majhoub’s opening brief he fails to challenge the BIA’s
September 7, 2005 order denying his motion to reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised and argued in opening
brief are waived).
With respect to petition No. 06-70188, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Majdoub’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed
more than five months after the BIA’s June 9, 2005 order dismissing his appeal.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
To the extent Majdoub contends that the BIA should have sua sponte
reopened his motion despite its untimeliness, we lack jurisdiction to review this
claim because the decision of the agency whether to invoke its sua sponte authority

-- 2 of 3 --

RA/Research 05-76191 3
is committed to its unfettered discretion. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
No. 05-76191: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
No. 06-70188: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --