Rene Dominguez-Cienfuegos; Samia Elizabeth Dominguez- Ramirez 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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE DOMINGUEZ-CIENFUEGOS;
SAMIA ELIZABETH DOMINGUEZ-
RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73170
Agency Nos. A095-306-322
A095-306-323
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rene Dominguez-Cienfuegos and Samia Elizabeth Dominguez-Ramirez,
husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-73170 2
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Petitioners do not raise any arguments concerning the BIA’s dispositive
determination that petitioners were not prima facie eligible for relief because they
failed to depart within the voluntary departure period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)
(failure to depart voluntarily within the time period specified results in a ten-year
bar to certain forms of relief, including cancellation of removal); De Martinez v.
Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 762-64 (9th Cir. 2004). Petitioners therefore have waived
any challenge to the BIA’s 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).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s February 5, 2007, order
dismissing their underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315
F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --