
    Jose Arturo ALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
    Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Jane Tracey Schaffner, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Arturo Alas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 449 (9th Cir.2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Alas did not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) due to his controlled substance violation. Thus our jurisdiction to review the agency’s order is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). In his opening brief, Alas fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency’s reliance on his concession that the evidence is sufficient to prove his role as a principal in his conviction under California Vehicle Code § 10851(a). See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011). Alas was represented by counsel and raised no ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir.1986) (aliens are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances). Accordingly, Alas does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or legal question that would restore our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Alas’s remaining claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     