Case Name: Martha ITUARTE-OLIVAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-07
Citations: 418 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 08-74144
Parties: Martha ITUARTE-OLIVAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
Martha ITUARTE-OLIVAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 7, 2011.
Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
Drew Brinkman, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
Martha Ituarte-Olivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Ituarte-Olivas fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to reopen where jurisdiction lay with the immigration judge. 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ituarte-Olivas' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.