Case Name: Leodegario Leon MUNOS; Emilia Garcia Martinon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 196 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 05-70418
Parties: Leodegario Leon MUNOS; Emilia Garcia Martinon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
Leodegario Leon MUNOS; Emilia Garcia Martinon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70418.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
Leodegario Leon Munos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Emilia Garcia Martinon, Los Angeles, 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, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leodegario Leon Munos, and his wife Emilia Garcia Martinon, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider its prior order affirming an immigration judge's denial of relief. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's October 26, 2004 order affirming without opinion the immigration judge's denial of Petitioners' application for cancellation of removal, because Petitioners faded to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's order denying their motion for reconsideration because they failed to raise any arguments in their opening brief challenging that order. See id. at 1259-60 (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.