JESUS REYES ONTIVEROS and ARELI AVILA 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS REYES ONTIVEROS and ARELI
AVILA RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70145
Agency Nos. A099-968-715
A099-450-137
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Reyes Ontiveros and Areli Avila Ramirez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of 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.
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70145 2
Even construed liberally, petitioners’ pro se brief does not challenge the
BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen was untimely and
number-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent petitioners are challenging the BIA’s decision not to reopen
sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --