Opinion
Nos. 04-71368, 04-75341.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 23, 2007.
David L. Ross, Esq., Ross, Rose Hammill, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Melanie M. Yang, Esq., Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A70-967-580, A70-967-581.
Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Because it was not "specifically and distinctly argued," United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005), petitioners waived the claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion or committed legal error in denying the January 20, 2004 motion to reopen. With respect to the September 13, 2004 motion to reopen, we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision declining to reopen sua sponte. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002).
In No. 04-71368, the petition is DENIED. In No. 04-75341, the petition is DISMISSED.