Case Name: Manuel MEZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 231 F. App'x 543
Docket Number: No. 06-72003
Parties: Manuel MEZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 543–544

Head Matter:
Manuel MEZA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72003.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Manuel Meza-Gomez, El Monte, 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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Meza-Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In Meza-Gomez's opening brief, MezaGomez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that his motion to reconsider was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.Sd 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying order dismissing Meza-Gomez's direct appeal from the immigration judge's decision 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.