
    Rene DOMINGUEZ-CIENFUEGOS; Samia Elizabeth Dominguez-Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73170.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    Rene Dominguez-Cienfuegos, Palm Springs, CA, pro se.
    Samia Elizabeth Dominguez-Ramirez, Palm Springs, CA, pro se.
    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, OIL, Kate D. Bala-ban, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rene Dominguez-Cienfuegos and Samia Elizabeth Dominguez-Ramirez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners do not raise any arguments concerning the BIA’s dispositive determination that petitioners were not prima fa-cie eligible for relief because they failed to depart within the voluntary departure period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (failure to depart voluntarily within the time period specified results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including cancellation of removal); De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 762-64 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners therefore have waived any challenge to the BIA’s decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s February 5, 2007, order dismissing their underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     