Case Name: Sandra Evelia ESTRADA-DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 231 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 06-72747
Parties: Sandra Evelia ESTRADA-DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Sandra Evelia ESTRADA-DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72747.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Sandra Evelia Estrada-Dominguez, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sandra Evelia Estrada-Dominguez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We deny in part and dismiss the petition for review.
In Estrada-Dominguez's opening brief, Estrada-Dominguez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's order denying her motion to reconsider on the ground that she failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact. 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 underlying order dismissing Estrada-Dominguez's direct appeal from the IJ's decision because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. 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.