Case Name: Ramon Macias HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 195 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 05-73474
Parties: Ramon Macias HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Ramon Macias HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73474.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Ramon Macias Hernandez, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Veronica Aceves Macias, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramon Macias Hernandez and his wife Veronica Aceves Macias, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The Board dismissed petitioners' appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) because the brief statement on their notice of appeal failed to meaningfully apprise the Board of the reason underlying their appeal. Petitioners have waived any challenge to the Board's grounds for its dismissal by failing to address it in their opening brief. 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.