Case Name: Luisito Formalejo MAGLAQUE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-23
Citations: 543 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 10-72767
Parties: Luisito Formalejo MAGLAQUE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
Luisito Formalejo MAGLAQUE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72767.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
Berc Agopoglu, Esquire, Law Offices of Berc & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ann M. Welhaf, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Luisito Formalejo Maglaque, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Maglaque does not address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's dispositive determination that he failed to demonstrate prejudice from former counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1088, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are unavailing.
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.