Case Name: Jesus PENALOZA-HERRERA; Mariela Murillo-Tapia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 775
Docket Number: No. 07-73724
Parties: Jesus PENALOZA-HERRERA; Mariela Murillo-Tapia, Petitioners, 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: 775–776

Head Matter:
Jesus PENALOZA-HERRERA; Mariela Murillo-Tapia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73724.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
Jesus Penaloza-Herrera, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Mariela Murillo-Tapia, San Jose, CA, pro se.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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
Jesus Penaloza-Herrera and Mariela Murillo-Tapia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the agency's dispositive determination that female petitioner failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement and both petitioners failed to meet the requisite hardship standard. 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); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners' remaining contention relating to their criminal conviction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.