Case Name: Anastacio RAMIREZ-QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 05-75192
Parties: Anastacio RAMIREZ-QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
Anastacio RAMIREZ-QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75192.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 15, 2007.
Anastacio Ramirez-Quiroz, Pacoima, CA, pro se.
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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anastacio Ramirez-Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing as untimely Ramirez-Quiroz's appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Even construing his opening brief liberally, Ramirez-Quiroz fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's determinations that his motion to reconsider failed to establish an error of fact or law in its prior order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.