MEMORANDUM **
Julia Lopez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying her 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchezs contentions that the BIA failed to properly consider her case and failed to consider due process violations that occurred before the IJ.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, Lopez-Sanchez fails to challenge the agencys adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived). Without credible testimony, Lopez-Sanchez is ineligible for asylum or withholding because the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to support her claims. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). We do not address Lopez-Sanchezs contentions regarding the cognizability of her proposed social group because the BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, we deny the petition as to Lopez-Sanchezs asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Lopez-Sanchez also fails to challenge the BIAs determination that she did not appeal the IJs denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Sanchezs contention that the BIA failed to consider arguments as to CAT eligibility. Thus, we deny the petition as to Lopez-Sanchezs CAT claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Sanchezs contentions that the IJ violated her right to due process in the assessment of her CAT claim, or her contentions regarding her eligibility for CAT relief, because she failed to raise these arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we dismiss the petition to the extent it asserts these contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.