
    Martha MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71183.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2015.
    
    Filed April 28, 2015.
    Camille Kim Cook, Esquire, Yarra, Kharazi & Associates, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sarah Maloney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating her prior expedited order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Mendoza’s challenge to the reinstatement order is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Duran Gonzales, as Mendoza concedes she filed her application for a waiver of inadmissibility well after Duran Gonzales became controlling law in this circuit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2), (i)(2)(A) (alien must be admissible to adjust status); Duran Gonzales, 508 F.3d at 1242 (“[Pjlaintiffs as a matter of law are not eligible to adjust their status because they are ineligible to receive 1-212 waivers [of inadmissibility].”)

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza’s contention that her case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order).

Mendoza’s request to hold her case in abeyance pending a decision in Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.2011) is denied as moot.

Mendoza’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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