Opinion
No. 06-73953.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed August 17, 2009.
Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A079-562-277, A079-562-278.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Zhora Grigoryan, and his wife, Rima Grigoryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners' contention regarding the IJ's denial of their motion to reopen absent a hearing transcript because it was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (due process challenges that are procedural in nature must be exhausted).
Petitioners waived any challenge to the agency's conclusions regarding their ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it in their opening brief. 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).