
    Cesar Humberto ZUNIGA-CARMONA, et al.; Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
    J. Jack Artz, Esq., Norwalk, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Humberto Zuniga-Carmona, his wife, Maria Estella Carmona De Zuniga, and their daughter, Sandra Janet Zuniga-Carmona, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider its prior order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying their motion for reconsideration by failing to raise any arguments in their opening brief challenging that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioners’ arguments related to the BIA’s underlying order affirming the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, because Petitioners failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See id. at 1258.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     