Case Name: Ruben MARTINEZ-ZENDEJAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 210 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 05-75223
Parties: Ruben MARTINEZ-ZENDEJAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 602–602

Head Matter:
Ruben MARTINEZ-ZENDEJAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75223.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Ruben Martinez-Zendejas, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
Monica Maria Godoy-Castanon, Moreno Valley, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruben Martinez-Zendejas and Monica Maria Godoy-Castanon, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their motion to reopen the underlying order of removal. The BIA found that petitioners failed to file a timely motion to reopen within ninety days of the BIA's underlying decision.
The sole basis for the BIA's decision was that petitioners' motion to reopen was filed almost three years past the filing deadline. Petitioners do not raise the issue of timeliness in their opening brief, and they have therefore waived any challenge to the BIA's order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.