Eusebio Lagunas Garcia; Eliazar Gonzalez Alonzo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUSEBIO LAGUNAS GARCIA;
ELIAZAR GONZALEZ ALONZO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-73895
Agency Nos. A096-057-918
A096-057-919
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eusebio Lagunas Garcia and Eliazar Gonzalez Alonzo, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-73895 2
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the BIA’s June 3, 2005, decision denying their motion to reopen.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing
petitioners’ 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.

-- 2 of 2 --