Case Name: EUN KYEONG SEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-07
Citations: 358 F. App'x 884
Docket Number: No. 07-71337
Parties: EUN KYEONG SEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 884–884

Head Matter:
EUN KYEONG SEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71337.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 7, 2009.
Eun Kyeong Seo, Fort Lee, NJ, pro se.
Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eun Kyeong Seo, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Seo fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that she was not entitled to a continuance. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
This court lacks jurisdiction over the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS") determinations regarding U Visas. See Ramirez Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255 -1256 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (USCIS has sole jurisdiction over the issuance of U Visa petitions); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I).
We lack jurisdiction to review Seo's contention regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of her prior counsel because she did not raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.