Case Name: Elida RAMIREZ-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-19
Citations: 657 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 14-71256
Parties: Elida RAMIREZ-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
Elida RAMIREZ-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71256
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 19, 2016
Joshua Effron, Immigrant Rep, Inc., Rolling Hills Estates, CA.
Allison Frayer, Sara Bayram, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Elida Ramirez-Pineda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Ramirez-Pineda fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency's grounds for denying her motion to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Pineda's unexhausted contentions regarding due process and eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.