
    Ademola Ibuknoluwa ADESANYA, Pro SE, aka Ibuknol Adesanya, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71935
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Ademóla Ibuknoluwa Adesanya, pro se
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ademóla Ibuknoluwa Adesanya, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings and his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Adesanya does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determinations that his February 10, 2014, motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred, and that his motion to reconsider the BIA’s December 13, 2013, order was untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief). Accordingly, we need not reach Adesanya’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief or his due process claim.

We deny Adesanya’s motions to take judicial notice and for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 16), and for an extension of time to comply with future orders (Docket Entry Nos. 28 and 29). We deny his motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 24) as unnecessary. We deny his motions regarding Nos. 15-16053 and 15-17064 (Docket Entry Nos. 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31) as moot.

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