
    Onofre CATALAN, AKA Jeff Catalan, AKA Onofre Catalan-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70857
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 21, 2018
    Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Onofre Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and his fourth motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Catalan does not make any contentions regarding the BIA’s determination that he had not demonstrated any error of law or fact to warrant reconsideration or that his fourth motion to reopen was time- and number-barred and did not fall within any exception to those filing requirements. He thus waives any challenge to those determinations. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brieare waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision declining to reopen Catalan’s case sua sponte based on Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2009), and Catalan’s contentions that the BIA abused its discretion in doing so do not raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (court can review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     