Case Name: Sergio Martinez RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 264 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 06-75206
Parties: Sergio Martinez RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Sergio Martinez RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75206.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
Sergio Martinez Rodriguez, Buena Park, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sergio Martinez Rodriguez and Maria Del Carmen Carmen Martinez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for re view of the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of their third motion to reconsider the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal.
Petitioners fail to raise any contentions regarding whether their third motion to reopen exceeded the numerical limitations set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Accordingly, they have waived any challenge to the BIA's sole ground for denying then1 third motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.