
    Jose Estanislao CALLEJAS-GUZMAN, AKA Jose Estanislao Guzman-Callejas, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73456
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Jose Estanislao Callejas-Guzman, Pro Se
    OIL, Kohsei Ugumori, Attorney, 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

Jose Estanislao Callejas-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Callejas-Guzman does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determinations regarding asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, suspension of deportation, U-visa eligibility, and ineffective assistance in denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

Callejas-Guzman failed to exhaust his contentions regarding lawful presence, his conviction for driving under the influence, and Temporary Protected Status. See id. (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before • the agency).

We do not consider the extra-record materials that Callejas-Guzman submitted with his opening brief and in Docket No. 17. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

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