Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Refugio VEGA-APARICIO; Velma Vega, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77391.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2007.
    Refugio Vega-Aparicio, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    Velma Vega, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    
      District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., R. Alexander Goring, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Refugio Vega-Aparicio and his wife Velma Vega, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

In their opening brief, Petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that their motion to reopen was filed out of time. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We do not consider any challenge to the BIA’s February 28, 2005 order upholding an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal, because that decision was the subject of a previous petition for review.

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