
    Salomon Hernandez CASTRO; Alejandrina Maldonado Jardinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70183.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
    Salomon Hernandez Castro, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
    Alejandrina Maldonado Jardinez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Shahrzad Baghai, Micheline K. Hershey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salomon Hernandez Castro and Alejan-drina 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 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(e)(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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     