
    Lazaro Echeverria ZEFERINO; Himelda Martinez Catalan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 24, 2007.
    Lazaro Echeverría Zeferino, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Himelda Martinez Catalan, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lazaro Echeverría Zeferino and Himelda Martinez Catalan seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reconsider its order upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In the opening brief, the petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider on the ground that it was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

To the extent the petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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.
     