Case Name: Valentin Santos Vicente GONZALEZ; Victoria Delfina Oxlaj Vicente, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 308 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 05-73924
Parties: Valentin Santos Vicente GONZALEZ; Victoria Delfina Oxlaj Vicente, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Valentin Santos Vicente GONZALEZ; Victoria Delfina Oxlaj Vicente, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73924.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
Gary P. Crowder, Carpintería, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard Zanfardino, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Valentin Santos Vicente Gonzalez and Victoria Delfina Oxlaj Vicente, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying their application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
After granting four of Petitioners' motions for a continuance, the IJ denied Petitioners' fifth motion for a continuance, and ordered Petitioners deported without adjudicating their claims for relief on the merits. In their brief to this court, Petitioners list the denial of a continuance and an alleged due process violation in their Statement of Issues, but fail to present any supporting argument. Petitioners have thereby abandoned any challenge to the IJ's decision. See In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir.l995)("An issue not discussed in a brief, although mentioned in the Statement of Issues, is deemed to be waived.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.