Case Name: Orfeline Cas AREOLA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-15
Citations: 21 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 99-70764; I & NS No. A72-009-988
Parties: Orfeline Cas AREOLA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
Orfeline Cas AREOLA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 99-70764.
I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 7, 2001 .
Decided June 15, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, and HENRY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert H. Henry, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation,

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Areola's argument that her due process rights were violated by the application of IIRIRA's stop time rule, § 309(5)(c), to her case is not addressed in the body of Areola's brief and is therefore deemed waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
Petition for review DENIED. Petitioner's remedy with respect to claims for relief under Bamhonctr-Gomez lies in district court in accordance with this court's recent opinion in Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.1999); aff'd, 236 F.3d 1115 (2001). Because the district court's preliminary injunction in Barahona-Gomez precludes the Attorney General from deporting class members until the class action is resolved, denial of this petition for review does not affect the rights of this class member as to that preclusion or the rights asserted in the class action.
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.