
    Seyed Ali TABATABAEI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73205.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Seyed Ali Tabatabaei, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Tabatabaei’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it more than 90 days after the IJ’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and failed to establish that he qualified for an exception to the filing deadline or for equitable tolling of the deadline.

In his opening brief, Tabatabaei fails to address, and thereby waives any challenge to, the agency’s denial of his motion for failure to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling or for failure to file an asylum application in conjunction with the motion, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

In light our disposition, we need not reach Tabatabaei’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     