Case Name: Engilberto VENEGAS-MAGALLON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 501 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 11-72682
Parties: Engilberto VENEGAS-MAGALLON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
Engilberto VENEGAS-MAGALLON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72682.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Engilberto Venegas-Magallon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary good moral character determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006) (no jurisdiction to review agency's discretionary good moral character determinations).
Venegas-Magallon fails to raise any argument in the opening brief with respect to his motion to remand. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in the opening brief are deemed abandoned).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Venegas-Magallon's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.