Case Name: Berzelius RODRIGUEZ MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 07-71429
Parties: Berzelius RODRIGUEZ MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 857–857

Head Matter:
Berzelius RODRIGUEZ MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71429.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
Emmanuel G. Guerrero, Esquire, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nicole N. Murley, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Berzelius Rodriguez Maravilla, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The record of conviction includes numerous court documents establishing that Ma-ravilla was convicted of "sexual assault in the third degree" in violation of Haw.Rev. Stat. § 707-732(l)(b). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B).
Maravilla does not challenge the agency's conclusion that a conviction for violating section Haw.Rev.Stat. § 707-732(l)(b) is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). 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). Accordingly, the agency did not err in concluding Maravilla was removable.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.