
    Alfredo NAVARRO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2015.
    
    Decided Filed April 30, 2015.
    Samuel Campbell Marsh, Law Office of Samuel C. Marsh, Del Mar, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously condudes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Navarro-Garda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Navarro-Garda has not raised, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that his motion to reopen was untimely and that he did not establish changed country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(I). See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Navarro-Garda has not established that the BIA violated due process by denying his motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Garcia’s remaining contentions because they were not raised before the agency and are therefore unexhausted. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the agency).

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.
     