Case Name: Wenceslao BAHENA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-18
Citations: 409 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 08-71948
Parties: Wenceslao BAHENA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
Wenceslao BAHENA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71948.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 18, 2011.
Wenceslao Bahena-Martinez, Gardena, CA, pro se.
Regina Byrd, Esquire, Linda Y. Cheng, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Wenceslao Bahena-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Bahena-Martinez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's April 29, 2008, decision denying his motion to reconsider. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying order dismissing Bahena-Martinez's 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).
Petitioner's December 14, 2010, motion to file a corrected opening brief is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.