Hendarsin Jahja; Thio Pie Tjiauw 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HENDARSIN JAHJA; THIO PIE
TJIAUW,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70439
Agency Nos. A099-713-142
A099-713-143
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hendarsin Jahja and Thio Pie Tjiauw, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70439 2
their 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.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s order denying their motion to reconsider. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where the
motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision
dismissing petitioners’ appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v.
INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s prior order
dismissing petitioners’ appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to
that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --