Case Name: Jorge Erasmo ALVARES; Josefina Alvares, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 04-73448
Parties: Jorge Erasmo ALVARES; Josefina Alvares, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Jorge Erasmo ALVARES; Josefina Alvares, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73448.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Jorge Erasmo Alvares, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Josefina Alvares, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ari Nazarov, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, 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
Jorge Erasmo Alvares and Josefina Al-vares, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contention that the agency erred in finding that Jorge Alvares failed to establish good moral character, because petitioners did not file a petition for review within 80 days of the BIA's March 30, 2004 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's June 14, 2004, order by failing to address the order in their petition. See id. at 1259-60.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.