
    Tomas REYES-TORRES; Melania Ortega-Mondragan; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73870.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
    Melania Ortega-Mondragan, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
    Felipe De Jesus Reyes-Ortega, Ridge-crest, CA, pro se.
    
      Maria Guadalupe Reyes-Ortega, Ridge-crest, CA, pro se.
    Tomas Reyes-Torres, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
    Raul Reyes-Ortega, Ridgecrest, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Aram A. Gavoor, Trial, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tomas Reyes-Torres, his wife, Melania Ortega-Mondragan, and their children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Reyes’ motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

In his opening brief, Reyes does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he untimely filed his motion to reconsider the merits of the underlying case. 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).

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