Wenceslao Bahena-Martinez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WENCESLAO BAHENA-MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71948
Agency No. A095-450-307
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Wenceslao Bahena-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71948 2
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
In his opening brief, Bahena-Martinez fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s April 29, 2008, decision denying his motion to
reconsider. 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
Bahena-Martinez’s direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to
that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner’s December 14, 2010, motion to file a corrected opening brief is
granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --