
    Oscar MADRIGAL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73925.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Decided Oct. 20, 2015.
    James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, 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: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Madrigal has never challenged the IJ’s dispositive determination that his conviction is a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) that renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C), nor does he challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived that issue by failing to raise it on appeal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). In light of this dispositive determination, we do not reach Madrigal’s contention that his conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude. See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir.2006) (declining to reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).

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