Case Name: Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 134 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: Nos. 04-70069; Agency Nos. A78-675-914, A78-675-915, A78-675-916, A78-675-917, A78-675-918
Parties: Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 04-70069.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Hillel R. Smith, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kuldip Singh, his wife, Ranjit Kaur, his two daughters, Navneet Kaur and Rajvir Kaur, and his son, Savneet Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
Because petitioners do not challenge the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the body of their opening brief, the claims are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for.publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.