Eulogio Maldonado-Vallarta 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EULOGIO MALDONADO-VALLARTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72627
Agency No. A098-455-023
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.
Eulogio Maldonado-Vallarta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72627 2
In his opening brief, Maldonado-Vallarta fails to raise any challenge to the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised in an opening brief are
deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing
Maldonado-Vallarta’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his
cancellation of removal application, 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 --