Case Name: Guadalberto Virgilio ROJAS-SANTOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 08-72598
Parties: Guadalberto Virgilio ROJAS-SANTOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
Guadalberto Virgilio ROJAS-SANTOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72598.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Guadalberto Virgilio Rojas-Santos, Whittier, CA, pro se.
Guadalupe Isabel Santos-Ambrosio, Whittier, CA, pro se.
OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District 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: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Guadalberto Virgilio Rojas-Santos, and Guadalupe Isabel Santos-Ambrosio, peti tion pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying them second motion to reopen the underlying denial of their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish the requisite hardship to their qualifying United States citizen children.
Petitioners do not raise any arguments concerning the BIA's denial of them second motion to reopen as being untimely and numerically barred, and therefore petitioners have waived any challenge to that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.