Case Name: Jesus Alberto Garcia LOPEZ; Martha Maria Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 07-72241
Parties: Jesus Alberto Garcia LOPEZ; Martha Maria Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 804–806

Head Matter:
Jesus Alberto Garcia LOPEZ; Martha Maria Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72241.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Jesus Alberto Garcia Lopez, Chino, CA, pro se.
Martha Maria Garcia, Chino, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy Stiffel Pad-dack, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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 Alberto Garcia Lopez and Martha Maria Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 8, 2007, order dismissing petitioners' appeal from an immigration judge's order denying their application for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA's May 11, 2007, order denying petitioners' motion to reopen and reconsider. In their brief, petitioners fail to address this order and waive any challenge to it. 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 in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.