Case Name: Vicente Flores ESTEBAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 989
Docket Number: No. 07-73805
Parties: Vicente Flores ESTEBAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 989–989

Head Matter:
Vicente Flores ESTEBAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73805.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Vicente Flores Esteban, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, Trial, OIL, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vicente Flores Esteban, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
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.