Case Name: Alfredo MERCADO MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-01
Citations: 417 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 09-72067
Parties: Alfredo MERCADO MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 661–661

Head Matter:
Alfredo MERCADO MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 1, 2011.
Alfredo Mercado Moreno, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Oil, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
Alfredo Mercado Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Mercado Moreno fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency's dispositive determination that he failed to provide credible testimony supporting the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mercado Moreno's hardship contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.