BOSKO KUSTUDIC V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72784 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOSKO LUBO KUSTUDIC, Petitioner, No. 10-72784 Agency No. A072-515-133 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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, * 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). 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 numericallybarred, 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 10-72784

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.