Salomon Hernandez Castro; Alejandrina Maldonado Jardinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SALOMON HERNANDEZ CASTRO;
ALEJANDRINA MALDONADO
JARDINEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70183
Agency Nos. A099-461-890
A099-461-891
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Salomon Hernandez Castro and Alejandrina Maldonado Jardinez, natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70183 2
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where petitioners filed their motion to reopen nearly one year
after issuance of the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and
failed to demonstrate changed conditions in Mexico material to their claim to
asylum such as would warrant an exception to the filing deadline, see Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 986 (holding that a petitioner cannot reopen based on changed country
conditions by relying on evidence that simply recounts generalized country
conditions without demonstrating that his or her predicament is appreciably
different from the dangers faced by fellow citizens).
Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that they
did not demonstrate ineffective assistance by their former attorney. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e generally will not take up
arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief before this court.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s prior
order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, because this

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70183 3
petition for review is untimely as to their underlying removal order. See
Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --