Case Name: Funmilola FAJINMI; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent; Funmilola Fajinmi; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-23
Citations: 252 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: Nos. 04-71368, 04-75341
Parties: Funmilola FAJINMI; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Funmilola Fajinmi; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Funmilola FAJINMI; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Funmilola Fajinmi; Alisia Fade Fajinmi, Petitioners, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 04-71368, 04-75341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2007.
Filed Oct. 23, 2007.
David L. Ross, Esq., Ross, Rose & Hammill, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Melanie M. Yang, Esq., Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Because it was not "specifically and distinctly argued," United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.2005), petitioners waived the claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion or committed legal error in denying the January 20, 2004 motion to reopen. With respect to the September 13, 2004 motion to reopen, we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision declining to reopen sua sponte. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002).
In No. 04-71368, the petition is DENIED. In No. 04-75341, the petition is DISMISSED.
phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.