
    Cesar Ernesto SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CONSULATE GENERAL OF MEXICO IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16791.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 18, 2015.
    Cesar Ernesto Sanehez-Ramirez, San Bruno, CA, pro se.
    Christopher A. Kerosky, Esquire, Counsel, Wilson Purves, Esquire, Kerosky, Purves & Bogue, Kent Michael Roger, Matthew Weiler, Esquire, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Ernesto Sanchez-Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various claims arising from his employment with the Consulate General of Mexico in San Francisco. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt v. Lasheen, 603 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

. The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Sanchez-Ramirez failed to show that his employment fell within the commercial activity exception to immunity. See Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq, 694 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1132 (9th Cir.2012) (a plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity; the commercial activity exception applies only where a foreign state “exercises those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, or when it acts in the manner of a private player within the market, but not when it exercises those powers peculiar to sovereigns.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     