From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mancilla v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 26, 2008
304 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-73339.

Submitted December 17, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 26, 2008.

Juan Martin Gomez Mancilla, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

Maria Margarita Ramos Martinez, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

Office Of Immigration Litigation, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, 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 Nos. A075-746-095, A075-746-096.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Juan Martin Gomez Mancilla and Maria Margarita Ramos Martinez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their second motion to reopen as untimely filed.

Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's order, denying their motion to reopen, by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Mancilla v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 26, 2008
304 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Mancilla v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Juan Martin Gomez MANCILLA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 26, 2008

Citations

304 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2008)