Case ID: f-appx_284/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Carlos Soto PLATA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2008.
    
    Filed July 2, 2008.
    Juan Carlos Soto Plata, pro se.
    Maria Teresa Soto, pro se.
    Nayeli Soto Pineda, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, J. Max Weintraub, Kohsei Ugumori, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Soto Plata, his wife Maria Teresa Soto and their daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying as untimely their motion to reconsider the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal.

Petitioners contend that the BIA erred in denying their motion to reconsider because their qualifying relatives will suffer extreme hardship, and they should be granted cancellation relief.

Petitioners fail to challenge the sole basis of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reconsider, namely the untimeliness of their motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(b)(2). Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s June 7, 2007, order denying their motion to reconsider by failing to challenge the basis of that order in their opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996).

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