Case Name: Noemi AMAYA-HERSANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 10-70419
Parties: Noemi AMAYA-HERSANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
Noemi AMAYA-HERSANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70419.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rodriguez Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Noemi Amaya-Hersano, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the new social group and political opinion contentions Amaya-Hersano presents in her opening brief, because she did not raise these to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). Thus, Amaya-Hersano's withholding of removal claim fails.
Amaya-Hersano does not challenge the BIA's findings that she failed to demonstrate she was targeted on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of her family and that she could not reasonably relocate within Honduras if returned. 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).
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.