22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T464,MEMORANDUM Jesus Alberto Garcia Lopez and Martha Maria Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 8, 2007, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA’s May 11, 2007, order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and reconsider. In their brief, petitioners fail to address this order and waive any challenge to it. 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T496,

MEMORANDUM

Jesus Alberto Garcia Lopez and Martha Maria Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 8, 2007, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

The petition for review is timely only as to the BIA’s May 11, 2007, order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and reconsider. In their brief, petitioners fail to address this order and waive any challenge to it. 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.