Case Name: Miguel Angel Araiza TOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 176 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 04-72102
Parties: Miguel Angel Araiza TOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 760–761

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel Araiza TOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 10, 2006.
Miguel Angel Araiza Tova, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Maria Isabel Ramirez Martinez, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Ivan Araiza Ramirez, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Araiza Tova, Maria Isabel Ramirez Martinez, and Ivan Araiza Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying as untimely their 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.
We do not review the BIA's order denying petitioners' motion to reopen because petitioners have not challenged the BIA's finding of untimeliness, which is the only issue properly before this court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) ("[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").
We lack jurisdiction to review the petitioners' challenge to the BIA's previous order denying their applications for cancellation of removal because petitioners did not file a timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.