Case Name: Maria Guadalupe FRANCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-20
Citations: 117 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 03-72825, A75-653-604
Parties: Maria Guadalupe FRANCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Maria Guadalupe FRANCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72825, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 20, 2004.
Maria Guadalupe Franco, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Wright, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Franco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Franco has waived any challenge to the BIA's determination that her motion to reopen was not timely filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), by not raising this issue in her opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
We do not review Franco's challenge to the immigration judge's hardship determination, which was considered and rejected by this Court in Franco v. Ashcroft, 02-73201. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991).
All pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by the Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.