Case Name: Rosa Amelia URIBE-BEDOYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 866
Docket Number: No. 07-72825
Parties: Rosa Amelia URIBE-BEDOYA, Petitioner, 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: 866–867

Head Matter:
Rosa Amelia URIBE-BEDOYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72825.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
Rosa Amelia Uribe Bedoya, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
James A. Hurley, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esq., Assistant Director, Karen Y. Stewart, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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: 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
Rosa Amelia Uribe-Bedoya, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdic tion pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
Contrary to her contention, the agency did not deny Uribe-Bedoya's cancellation application on the basis of her expunged 1997 conviction. Uribe-Bedoya has waived any challenge to the agency's conclusion that her three 2001 convictions were crimes involving moral turpitude which precluded her from demonstrating good moral character and rendered her ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
We therefore need not reach Uribe-Be-doya's remaining contentions concerning hardship and continuous physical presence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.