Case Name: Alejo LEON; Yolanda Catalina Sanchez Vasquez, Petitioners, 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: 230 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 06-71224
Parties: Alejo LEON; Yolanda Catalina Sanchez Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Alejo LEON; Yolanda Catalina Sanchez Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71224.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Alejo Leon, Laguna Hills, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-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
Alejo Leon and Yolanda Catalina Sanchez Vasquez, husband and wife, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In Petitioners' opening brief, Petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that their motion to reopen was untimely. 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 Petitioners' direct appeal from an immigration judge'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.