Alicia Nava Reveles; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

08-75120Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 19, 2010

Full text

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).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALICIA NAVA REVELES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75120
Agency Nos. A096-051-774
A096-051-775
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Alicia Nava Reveles and her husband Herberto Nava Mendez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying their second motion to reopen the underlying denial of their
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 08-75120 2
application for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that petitioners’
motion was untimely and numerically barred.
Petitioners contend that the BIA erred when it denied their second motion to
reopen because their United States citizen children will experience the requisite
hardship if petitioners are removed, and petitioners’ due process rights were
violated when the BIA dismissed their first motion to reopen as untimely filed.
Petitioners do not raise any arguments concerning the BIA’s denial of their
second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, and therefore
petitioners have waived any challenge to the decision. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (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
decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian
v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.