Case Name: Jesus Reyes ONTIVEROS and Areli Avila Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-26
Citations: 540 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 12-70145
Parties: Jesus Reyes ONTIVEROS and Areli Avila Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Jesus Reyes ONTIVEROS and Areli Avila Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70145.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
Jesus Reyes Ontiveros, pro se.
Drew Brinkman, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respndent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Reyes Ontiveros and Areli Avila Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed 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 dispositive determination that their motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent petitioners are challenging the BIA's decision not to reopen sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
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.