Case Name: Jose Juan de Dios ALVAREZ CASTANEDA, a.k.a. Jose Juan Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-25
Citations: 479 F. App'x 92
Docket Number: No. 09-71094
Parties: Jose Juan de Dios ALVAREZ CASTANEDA, a.k.a. Jose Juan Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
Jose Juan de Dios ALVAREZ CASTANEDA, a.k.a. Jose Juan Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 25, 2012.
Iraj Manucher Shahrok, Esquire, Law Office of Iraj Shahrok, Belmont, CA, for Petitioner.
Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Jose Juan de Dios Alvarez Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Alvarez Castaneda failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider and reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarez Castaneda's contention that he is entitled to a continuance in order to pursue adjustment of status because he did not present this contention to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction over contentions not raised before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.