Case Name: Leopoldo Miranda ADAME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 315 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 08-70217
Parties: Leopoldo Miranda ADAME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Leopoldo Miranda ADAME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Juan Antonio Laguna, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District 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, Andrea Gevas, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leopoldo Miranda Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative.
Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA's order denying his 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 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.