its enumerated provisions — does not undercut our application of Rodriguez-Lariz's and Arrozal’s logic to this case. The key word in both provisions is "under” — here, whether the BIA’s denial of Medina-Morales' motion to reopen was under any of the provisions listed in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). 6 .In a letter filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) on the day of oral argument, the government argues for the first time that relief for Medina-Morales is foreclosed by 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d), which subjects aliens to civil liability for failing timely to depart pursuant to a voluntary departure arrangement. We conclude that the government has waived this argument, see Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Bonneville Power Admin., 342 F.3d 924, 933 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), and also deny as moot Medina-Morales’ motion
holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief holding a party waives an argument made for the first time on reply holding that we do not consider sierra clubs argument made for the first time in a fed rapp p 28j letter holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief