
    Elias DE JESUS DEL CID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
    Elias De Jesus Del Cid, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elias De Jesus Del Cid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 824 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, petitioner failed to challenge the agency’s dispositive denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to address petitioner’s contentions related to cancellation of removal because the record reflects that he did not seek this form of relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, petitioner’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately articulate its reasons for denying his request for relief from removal is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

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