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:T43a,MEMORANDUM ** Hui Zhao Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Petitioner fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that his motion was untimely filed. 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). To the extent Petitioner challenges the BIA’s May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 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. 36-3.24:T45f,

MEMORANDUM **

Hui Zhao Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Petitioner fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that his motion was untimely filed. 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).

To the extent Petitioner challenges the BIA’s May 30, 2006 order denying his motion to reissue, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.