Case ID: f-appx_325/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anacleto URIAS-SOTO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 29, 2009.
    Anacleto Urias-Soto, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    Eduardo Perez-Romero, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Georgina Romero-Flores, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anacleto Urias-Soto, his wife Georgina Romero-Flores, and their minor child Eduardo Perez-Romero, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, their motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative.

Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA’s dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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