
    Yamal GABRIE, a.k.a. Gabriel Yamal, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72612.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2011.
    Yamal Gabrie, Pasadena, CA, pro se.
    Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, ADA Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yamal Gabrie, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2006), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for the review.

In his opening brief, Gabrie fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that Gabrie was bound by his former counsel’s admissions before the IJ that Gabrie’s criminal convictions were crimes involving moral turpitude. 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).

The agency therefore did not err in denying Gabrie’s applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B), and voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(l)(B), because he was unable to show good moral character during the relevant time period preceding his applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3); Matter of Deanda-Romo, 23 I. & N. Dec. 597, 599 (BIA 2003) (individual who has committed more than one crime involving moral turpitude is not eligible for the petty offense exception).

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Gabrie’s request for a continuance where Gabrie failed to show good cause. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012-15; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. It follows that Gabrie’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

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