Testo completo
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATIVIDAD CORONADO CEJA;
HERMINIA BELTRAN PARTIDA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73553
Agency Nos. A095-882-619
A095-882-620
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Natividad Coronado Ceja and Herminia Beltran Partida, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-73553 2
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as time- and number-barred, because the successive motion was filed
over one year after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
petitioners failed to establish material changed country conditions in Mexico to
qualify for an exception to the regulatory filing limitations, see id. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of their motion to reconsider. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --