MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Padilla-Razo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Padilla-Razo has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on his conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance, or the agency’s determination that he is not eligible for relief from removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived).

Padilla-Razo’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his request for release from immigration custody on the condition of bond is not properly before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castñllon bond determination).

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discre *603 tion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.