Case Name: Francisco CARRILLO HERRERA, 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: 2007-06-11
Citations: 234 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 06-71259
Parties: Francisco CARRILLO HERRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Francisco CARRILLO HERRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 11, 2007.
Francisco Carrillo Herrera, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Carrillo Herrera, Ma Del Rosario Carrillo and their daughter Brenda Patricia Carrillo Leon, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") denial of their second motion to reopen removal proceedings as numerically-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners waived any challenge to the Board's denial of their second motion to reopen by failing to address that decision in their opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues which are 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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.