Case Name: Carlos Manuel VALENZUELA-MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 08-71866
Parties: Carlos Manuel VALENZUELA-MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
Carlos Manuel VALENZUELA-MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71866.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Shan D. Potts, Esquire, Law Offices of Larry W. Smith, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Carlos Manuel Valenzuela-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Valenzuela-Morales fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's dispositive alternative holding that Valenzuela-Morales did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir.2006) ("[W]e will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief.") (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Valenzuela-Morales's remaining contentions.
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.