Case Name: Gustavo Garcia CORONA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 07-74174
Parties: Gustavo Garcia CORONA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
Gustavo Garcia CORONA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Gustavo Garcia Corona, Miraloma, CA, pro se.
Gabriela Ramirez Flores, Miraloma, CA, pro se.
Andrea Gevas, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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
Gustavo Garcia Corona and his wife Gabriela Ramirez-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, them motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to them qualifying relatives.
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's order denying their motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.