Case Name: HENDARSIN JAHJA; Thio Pie Tjiauw, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-22
Citations: 520 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 12-70439
Parties: HENDARSIN JAHJA; Thio Pie Tjiauw, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 538–538

Head Matter:
HENDARSIN JAHJA; Thio Pie Tjiauw, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70439.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 22, 2013.
Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioners.
Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Hendarsin Jahja and Thio Pie Tjiauw, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 order denying their motion to reconsider. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision dismissing petitioners' appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA's prior order dismissing petitioners' appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.