
    Jose AGUILAR-CORTES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70024
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Eduardo A. Paredes, Attorney, Law Office of Eduardo A. Paredes, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Lynda Do, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, 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 Aguilar-Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations regarding inadmissibility. Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Aguilar-Cortes raises no contentions regarding the agency’s determination that the admissions and concessions in his written pleadings make him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, and thus he waives challenge to this dispositive determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2) (to be eligible for adjustment of status, an alien must be admissible); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(G)(i)(H) (any alien who has been ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and reenters the United States without being admitted is inadmissible); Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).

In light of this disposition, we need not address Aguilar-Cortes’ remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court is not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the result reached).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     