
    SUNG ILL KIM; Jung Suk Kim, a.k.a. Jung Suk Chun; Young Woo Kim, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71554.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Claire Kim, Esquire, Law Offices of Claire H. Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, DOJ-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: 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

Sung Ill Kim and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen is time- and number-barred and that they do not qualify for equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejiar-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are rejected.

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.
     