Case Name: Arely REYES GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-03
Citations: 298 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 06-74096
Parties: Arely REYES GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Arely REYES GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74096.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 3, 2008.
Arely Reyes Gonzalez, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arely Reyes Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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 her opening brief, Reyes Gonzalez fails to address, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to reconsider as untimely. 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).
To the extent that Reyes Gonzalez seeks review of the BIA's March 23, 2006 order summarily affirming an immigration judge's removal order, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that BIA order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal); see also 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.