Case Name: Benita Longino JUAN; Leticia Bautista Longino, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 309 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 06-75026
Parties: Benita Longino JUAN; Leticia Bautista Longino, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 309
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Benita Longino JUAN; Leticia Bautista Longino, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75026.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
Benita Longino Juan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Leticia Bautista Longino, Los Angeles, 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, Hillel Smith, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benita Longino Juan and Leticia Bautista Longino, 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. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, Petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA's September 25, 2006 decision denying their motion to reopen and 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 order dismissing Petitioners' 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).
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.