REYES GONZALEZ v. MUKASEY, 298 Fed.Appx. 605 (9th Cir. 2008)
Arely REYES GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, AttorneyGeneral, Respondent.
No. 06-74096.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted October 28, 2008.[fn*]
Filed November 3, 2008.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
Arely Reyes Gonzalez, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A095-311-469.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ` The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Arely Reyes Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.Page 606
In her opening brief, Reyes Gonzalez fails to address, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to reconsider as untimely. 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).
To the extent that Reyes Gonzalez seeks review of the BIA's March 23, 2006 order summarily affirming an immigration judge's removal order, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that BIA order. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal); See also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED inpart.