Case Name: Cesia Yamileth BERMUDEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-20
Citations: 519 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 10-70218
Parties: Cesia Yamileth BERMUDEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 425–425

Head Matter:
Cesia Yamileth BERMUDEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 20, 2013.
Cesia Yamileth Bermudez-Mendoza, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Cesia Yamileth Bermudez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Bermudez-Mendo-za fails to address, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen her proceedings. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief may be deemed waived). Because the issue of the IJ's jurisdiction is disposi-tive, we need not reach the contentions Bermudez-Mendoza raises in her opening brief regarding eligibility for asylum.
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.