Case Name: Aureliano HILARIO-AMBROSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: No. 07-70743
Parties: Aureliano HILARIO-AMBROSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 810–810

Head Matter:
Aureliano HILARIO-AMBROSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 16, 2010.
David Blake, Solana Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, Regan Hildebrand, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Aureliano Hilario-Ambrosio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his request for administrative closure. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of Hilario-Ambrosio's request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1117-20 (9th Cir.2009).
In his opening brief, Hilario-Ambrosio fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that the IJ did not err in denying his request for a continuance. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.