Peter Chidet Maduike v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER CHIDET MADUIKE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72974
Agency No. A072-833-707
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Peter Chidet Maduike, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance and
ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
FILED
DEC 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his
In his opening brief, Maduike fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the agency’s denial of Maduike’s ninth motion for a continuance. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in a
petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).
To the extent Maduike challenges the BIA’s 2009 order, we lack jurisdiction
to consider his challenge because that order is not a final order of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252.
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Maduike’s contention regarding the
approved visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen daughter because he
failed to raise that contention before the agency in relation to the order under
review, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not consider the supplemental
material filed by Maduike because it is not part of the administrative record. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72974 2

-- 2 of 2 --