Juan v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Juan v. Mukasey

309 F. App'x 172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

DocketNo. 06-75026

StatusPublished

This text of 309 F. App'x 172 (Juan v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juan v. Mukasey, 309 F. App'x 172 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Benita Longino Juan and Leticia Bautista Longino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, Petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s September 25, 2006 decision denying their motion to reopen and 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 order dismissing Petitioners’ 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).

[173]*173PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Benita Longino Juan and Leticia Bautista Longino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, Petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s September 25, 2006 decision denying their motion to reopen and 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 order dismissing Petitioners’ 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).

[173]*173PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F. App'x 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack