Case Name: Asminda Sylvia RAMON-PEDROZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-20
Citations: 519 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 12-71676
Parties: Asminda Sylvia RAMON-PEDROZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
Asminda Sylvia RAMON-PEDROZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71676.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 20, 2013.
Asminda Sylvia Ramon-Pedroza, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kristen Gi-uffreda Chapman, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Asminda Sylvia Ramon-Pedroza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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.
Ramon-Pedroza failed to raise in her opening brief, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency's dispositive determinations that she is removable and that she does not qualify for the relief requested. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (noting the court generally will not "take up arguments not raised in an alien's opening brief').
We lack jurisdiction to review Ramon-Pedroza's contention that the IJ should have given her more time to pursue her case because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See id. (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the petitioner's administrative proceedings before the BIA).
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.