Bosko Lubo Kustudic 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BOSKO LUBO KUSTUDIC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72784
Agency No. A072-515-133
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Bosko Lubo Kustudic, a native and citizen of the former Yugoslavia,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying
his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72784 2
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and de novo questions of law,
Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review in
part, and dismiss in part.
By not raising any arguments concerning the BIA’s dispositive
determination that his second motion to reopen was untimely and numerically-
barred, Kustudic has waived any challenge to that decision. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kustudic’s contention that the government
failed to provide him with a copy of his file during removal proceedings in
violation of due process because he failed to raise the claim before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that due process
challenges that are procedural in nature must be exhausted). We do not reach
Kustudic’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --