Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 07-71337. Attorney(S) Eun Kyeong Seo, Fort Lee, NJ, pro se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent. Judges Arthur Lawrence Alarcon Stephen S. Trott Atsushi Wallace Tashima Acts Aliens And Nationality — Immigration And Nationality — Immigration — Adjustment And Change Of Status — Judicial Review Of Orders Of Removal Aliens And Nationality — Immigration And Nationality — General Provisions — Definitions See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. EUN KYEONG SEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Eun Kyeong Seo, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In her opening brief, Seo fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that she was not entitled to a continuance. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). This court lacks jurisdiction over the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS") determinations regarding U Visas. See Ramirez Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255 -1256 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (USCIS has sole jurisdiction over the issuance of U Visa petitions); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I). We lack jurisdiction to review Seo's contention regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of her prior counsel because she did not raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.