
    Evelyn Patricia MEDRANO, aka Patricia Medrano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73550.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 02, 2015.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Petitioner.
    Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM.

Evelyn Patricia Medrano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Medrano does not raise, and has therefore waived, any argument challenging the agency’s determination with respect to CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned. Furthermore, an issue referred to in the appellant’s statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.” (citations omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Medra-no’s contentions regarding her applications for asylum and cancellation of removal, as well as her contentions regarding her past criminal convictions, where she failed to exhaust these claims before the agency. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     