Case Name: Claudia S. OROZCO-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-09
Citations: 386 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 06-73570
Parties: Claudia S. OROZCO-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 716–716

Head Matter:
Claudia S. OROZCO-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73570.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 9, 2010.
Rosaura D. Rodriguez, Esq., Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Claudia S. Orozco-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Orozco-Arroyo fails to challenge the BIA's dispositive conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction because she had waived her right to appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(l)(i)(D) in order to obtain a 120-day grant of voluntary departure. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in a party's opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.