Case Name: Angel Tizoc TALAVERA ROMAN; Flora Castaneda Zarate, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 298 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 05-74870
Parties: Angel Tizoc TALAVERA ROMAN; Flora Castaneda Zarate, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Angel Tizoc TALAVERA ROMAN; Flora Castaneda Zarate, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74870.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Angel Tízoc Talavera Roman, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Flora Castaneda Zarate, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Jesse Lloyd Busen, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, 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 Tízoc Talavera Roman and Flora Castaneda Zarate, married natives and cit izens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 17, 2005 order dismissing petitioners' direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir .2003).
The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA's July 22, 2005 order denying petitioners' motion to reopen. In their opening brief, petitioners' fail to address and therefore have waived any challenge to this order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.