
    Ida ANWAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2008.
    
    Filed June 30, 2008.
    
      Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John C. Cunningham, Esq., John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ida Anwar, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“LJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for i’eview.

Anwar’s challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003), and she does not demonstrate that the BIA’s decision to streamline her particular case was improper.

In her opening brief Anwar fail to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate changed country conditions sufficient to merit reopening. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the I J’s order denying Anwar’s underlying application for relief because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     