Case Name: Rudy DIAZ-RUANO, Petitioner, v. EriC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 441 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 09-73713
Parties: Rudy DIAZ-RUANO, Petitioner, v. EriC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Rudy DIAZ-RUANO, Petitioner, v. EriC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73713.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Rudy Diaz-Ruano, Fontana, CA, pro se.
Matt Crapo, OIL, Michelle Gorden Lat-our, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rudy Diaz-Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Diaz-Ruano has waived any challenge to the BIA's dispositive determination that he failed to establish prejudice because his failure to depart within his voluntary departure period rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Diaz-Ruano's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).