Case Name: Angel SALMERON-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, 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 629
Docket Number: No. 05-73531
Parties: Angel SALMERON-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
Angel SALMERON-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73531.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., Michelle G. Latour, 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
Angel Salmeron-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its previous order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. 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 review the BIA's February 2, 2005, order because the instant petition for review is untimely as to that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
Salmeron-Contreras has waived any challenge to the BIA's May 17, 2005, order denying his motion to reconsider by failing to address that order in his opening brief. See id. at 1260 (holding that issues not addressed in the opening brief are generally waived).
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.