Case Name: YU CHEN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-22
Citations: 423 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 08-72862
Parties: YU CHEN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
YU CHEN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72862.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 22, 2011.
Yu Chen Zhao, El Monte, CA, pro se.
James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Yu Chen Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his 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 his opening brief, Zhao fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency's determination that he abandoned his lawful permanent resident status. 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).
To the extent Zhao challenges the BIA's December 16, 2008, order denying his motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).
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.