22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T48f,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. 36-3.24:T4c1,

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.