
    Julian PINEDA-MURALLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70415.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed July 31, 2013.
    Vera A. Weisz, Weisz Immigration Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Ann M. Welhaf, 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: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julian Pineda-Muralles, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reconsider its previous decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the evidence Pineda-Muralles submitted with his motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening where the evidence presented concerns the same discretionary grounds involved in the original decision. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-01 (9th Cir.2006).

To the extent Pineda-Muralles contends that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to exercise its authority to sua sponte reconsider or reopen his case, we lack jurisdiction to consider that issue. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

In his opening brief, Pineda-Muralles fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that his motion to reconsider was untimely. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Pineda-Muralles’s remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     