Case Name: Hennadiy ZAPOROZHETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 10-71296
Parties: Hennadiy ZAPOROZHETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Hennadiy ZAPOROZHETS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71296.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
H. Raymond Fasanom, The Law Offices of Madeo & Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Tracey McDonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Hennadiy Zaporozhets, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Zaporozhets fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency's denial of his application for relief. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zaporo-zhets's contention regarding receipt of a list of free legal services programs because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that procedural due process claims must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.