Case Name: Meksida MNATSAKANYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-23
Citations: 235 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 06-73863
Parties: Meksida MNATSAKANYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Meksida MNATSAKANYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73863.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
Filed Aug. 23, 2007.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Colette J. Winston, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Meksida Mnatsakanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its order denying her motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Mnatsakanyan fails to address the denial of her motion to reconsider, and therefore has waived any challenge to the BIA's determination that she failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not. specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's April 10, 2006 denial of Mnatsakanyan's motion to reopen because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.