Case Name: Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; Adaline Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 177 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 04-74266
Parties: Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; Adaline Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; Adaline Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74266.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Decided April 17, 2006.
Gloria Mendoza Espinoza, Bloomington, CA, pro se.
Adaline Mendoza, Bloomington, 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, David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Adaline Mendoza also is referred to as Adilene Mendoza Mendoza in the record.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gloria Mendoza Espinoza and her minor daughter Adaline Mendoza, both natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. 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.
Even construed liberally, petitioners' pro se brief does not challenge the BIA's determination that their motion should be deemed a motion to reconsider, and as such, was untimely. Accordingly, petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's denial of their motion. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
To the extent petitioners seek review of the BIA's underlying order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction. See id. at 1258 (an alien's filing of a motion to reopen and reconsider does not toll statutory time to appeal underlying final order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.