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:T44a,MEMORANDUM Jesus Penaloza-Herrera and Mariela Murillo-Tapia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review. In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the agency’s dispositive determination that female petitioner failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement and both petitioners failed to meet the requisite hardship standard. 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); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contention relating to their criminal conviction. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T477,

MEMORANDUM

Jesus Penaloza-Herrera and Mariela Murillo-Tapia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the agency’s dispositive determination that female petitioner failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement and both petitioners failed to meet the requisite hardship standard. 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); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contention relating to their criminal conviction.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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