Case Name: Hector ROBLES-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-02
Citations: 609 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 13-73060
Parties: Hector ROBLES-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Hector ROBLES-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed July 2, 2015.
Hector Robles-Rojas, North Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, Oil, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Hector Robles-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal, and denying his motion to accept a late-filed appeal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Robles-Rojas has waived any challenge to the BIA's dispositive determinations that his appeal was untimely and he had not presented evidence sufficient to warrant the BIA's considering the appeal by certification. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) ("[W]e generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien's opening brief before this court.").
We lack jurisdiction to review Robles-Rojas's remaining unexhausted contentions. See id. (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.