
    Tomas AYALA-PONCE; Angelica Ayala Montesino; Amador Ayala Montesino, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Tomas Ayala-Ponce, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-71330, 09-72132.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 25, 2010.
    Tomas Ayala Ponce, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Angelica Ayala Montesino, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Amador Ayala Montesino, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Juan Antonio Laguna, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Tomas Ayala-Ponce, Angelica Ayala Montesino, and Amador Ayala Montesino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny both petitions for review.

In the opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and thereby waive any challenge to, the BIA’s order denying their second motion to reopen. 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).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ayala-Ponce’s third motion to reopen. Ayala-Ponce failed to establish that his former counsel did not perform with sufficient competence during proceedings because Ayala-Ponce did not become eligible to adjust his status until after the deadline for filing a motion to reopen had expired. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (petitioner must demonstrate first that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence, and, second, that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance). It follows that Ayala-Ponce’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish due process claim).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     