
    Joe Luis Echeverria MAGANA, a.k.a. Luis Lara, a.k.a. Alejandro Mendez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72716.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    Joe Luis Echeverría Magana, CA, pro se.
    Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Davila, Trial, OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Erik R. Quick, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joe Luis Echeverría Magana, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Echeverría Magana fails to raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s determinations with respect to his claim for cancellation of removal, the IJ’s denial of a continuance, and reinstatement of the IJ’s grant of voluntary departure. 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 the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Echev-erría Magana’s claim, presented for the first time on appeal, that he fears persecution in Mexico, because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

Echeverría Magana’s conclusory assertions regarding the agency misunderstanding his testimony and unspecified constitutional rights are not supported by any argument in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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