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:T4e0,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. 36-3.24:T512,

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.