Case Name: Deisy M. PACHECO-DE VILLALTA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 13-70880
Parties: Deisy M. PACHECO-DE VILLALTA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Deisy M. PACHECO-DE VILLALTA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70880.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Channah Norman, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
We deny petitioner’s request for oral argument because the panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Deisy M. Paeheco-De Villalta and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immi gration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying Pacheco-De Villal-ta's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Pacheco-De Villalta does not raise any challenge to the BIA's dispositive finding that, before the IJ, her counsel conceded a lack of nexus and pursued only CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.8d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review Pacheco-De Villalta's contentions regarding CAT relief because she failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
The dismissal of this petition for review is without prejudice to the filing of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.