Case Name: Aiman MUSLEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 168 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 04-75450
Parties: Aiman MUSLEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Aiman MUSLEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75450.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
J. Jack Artz, Esq., Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner.
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 V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Aiman Musleh, a Palestinian and a citizen of Israel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Musleh's contentions regarding the BIA's May 25, 2004 order because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
Musleh filed a timely petition for review of the BIA's September 30, 2004 decision, denying his motion to reopen, but his brief failed to address the denial of reopening. He therefore waived that issue. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED 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.