
    Juan Carlos BRIBIESCA-ALCALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70366.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
    Juan Carlos Bribiesca-Alcala, Nipomo, CA, pro se.
    Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, Oil, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Bribiesca-Alcala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed, v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Bribiesca-Al-cala fails to address, and thereby waives any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider for failure to identify any error of law or fact in its prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s contention that the filing deadline for his motion should have been equitably tolled on account of the actions or inactions of the Department of Homeland Security because Bribiesca-Alcala failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Bribiesca-Alcala’s remaining contentions.

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.
     