
    David Moises MORAN-GUEVARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2009.
    Claudia J. Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Esquire, Lance Lo-mond Jolley, Esquire, Andrew C. MacLa-chlan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Moisés Moran-Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his 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.

In his opening brief, Moran-Guevara does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s March 30, 2007 order, which denied Moran-Guevara’s motion for failing to comply with the regulatory requirements for motions to re-open. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Moran-Guevara’s challenges to the BIA’s December 26, 2006 order, which dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, because Moran-Guevara did not file a timely petition for review of that order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

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.
     