22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4de,MEMORANDUM Veronica Flores-Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition for review. The BIA dismissed Flores-Palma’s appeal of the denial of her untimely motion because the record showed she received proper notice of her hearing and because she failed to meet the requirements for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, equitable tolling, or changed country conditions in Mexico. Flores-Palma does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive grounds for denying the motion. 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 conclusion, we do not reach Flores-Pal-ma’s contentions regarding her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50b,

MEMORANDUM

Veronica Flores-Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition for review.

The BIA dismissed Flores-Palma’s appeal of the denial of her untimely motion because the record showed she received proper notice of her hearing and because she failed to meet the requirements for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, equitable tolling, or changed country conditions in Mexico. Flores-Palma does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive grounds for denying the motion. 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 conclusion, we do not reach Flores-Pal-ma’s contentions regarding her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.