Case Name: Armando Urbina LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: Nos. 05-72238, 05-73798
Parties: Armando Urbina LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Armando Urbina LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-72238, 05-73798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
James L. Rosenberg, Esq., Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Peachey, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Urbina Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's decision ("IJ") denying his application for cancellation of removal, and for review of the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Lopez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
Lopez's opening brief does not contain any argument regarding the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.