Naresh Srichand Narang 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARESH SRICHAND NARANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71794
Agency No. A071-788-812
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Naresh Srichand Narang, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturrubarria v.
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71794 2
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Narang moved to reopen to apply for benefits under the settlement
agreement in Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 243 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1034-36 (N.D.
Cal. 2002), and to adjust status based on an approved I-140 visa petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the July 20, 2005, motion as
to the Barahona-Gomez settlement as untimely. 243 F.Supp.2d at 1034-36.
Narang’s claim that the deadline should be equitably tolled because he was not
personally notified is unpersuasive in light of the notice of the settlement published
in the Federal Register. See Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 942-43 (1986).
In his opening brief, Narang fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that the motion to reopen as to adjustment of
status was untimely. 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71794 3
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte reopening authority, including its determination that Narang does not fall
within the purview of the Barahona-Gomez settlement agreement. See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --