Court Opinion

ID: 3049564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 23:27:49.915046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:50.284328
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 01 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFREDO MERCADO MORENO,                           No. 09-72067

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A097-363-055

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted February 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Alfredo Mercado Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for

review.

       In his opening brief, Mercado Moreno fails to address, and therefore has

waived any challenge to, the agency’s dispositive determination that he failed to

provide credible testimony supporting the continuous physical presence required

for cancellation of removal. 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).

      In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mercado Moreno’s hardship

contentions.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                    09-72067