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.