
    Peter Chidet MADUIKE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2013.
    Peter Chidet Maduike, Reno, NV, pro se.
    Susan Bennett Green, OIL, DOJ-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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peter Chidet Maduike, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance and ordering him removed. 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, Maduike fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of Maduike’s ninth motion for a continuance. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).

To the extent Maduike challenges the BIA’s 2009 order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge because that order is not a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ma-duike’s contention regarding the approved visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen daughter because he failed to raise that contention before the agency in relation to the order under review, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We do not consider the supplemental material filed by Maduike because it is not part of the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010).

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.
     