844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988)); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented for review.”); Meehan v. County of L.A, 856 F.2d 102, 105 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988) (deeming an issue abandoned due to the party’s failure to brief it). We have confirmed that, in the immigration context, an alien does not preserve a claim where the alien references an issue in his opening brief — and even indicates that he will present argument on the subject — but does not discuss the claim in the argument section. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir.2006); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The majority asserts that “we need not decide
holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief