Lukman Hakim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his second motion to reopen and reconsider. We dismiss the petition for review. We iack jurisdiction to consider Hakim’s sole contention: that his late arrival at his removal hearing was due to exceptional circumstances. This issue was resolved by the BIA in its December 28, 2004 order, which Hakim did not appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). As Hakim’s opening brief does not address the
holding that petitioners seeking review of a denied motion to reopen or reconsider are required to have filed a separate petition for review challenging the bias dismissal of their appeal if they wish to contest the earlier decision holding that a decision of the bia whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 cfr  10032a is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond the courts review  ie the court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias decision not to reopen holding that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the underlying final order upon petition for review of a motion to reopen where the petitioner did not earlier seek review of that underlying final order holding that the timely filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the bia does not toll the time period for seeking appellate court review and that the mere act of filing the motion does not render nonfinal the underlying bia decision holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies