to act as a two-member panel, thereby invalidating by implication the Board’s July 13, 2009 decision in this case. This case was remanded to the Board. On August 9, 2010, a three-member pan th the Board’s remedial order, arguing that it does not reflect the temporary nature of the employment positions at issue. The Board retorts that this objection was not raised before the Board and that, therefore, the argument is waived. In the absence of “extraordinary circumstances,” this court does not have jurisdiction to hear arguments that were not urged before the Board, pursuant to section 10(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). See Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 665, 102 S.Ct. 2071, 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982); see also Sever v. NLRB, 231 F.3d 1156, 1171 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, to preserve an objection to the
holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion holding that argument is waived where employee did not raise it in its exceptions to aljs decision holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court