State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Fakhri Vahabi, Respondent (C7-95-1795), Hamid Reza Vahabi, Respondent (C9-95-1796).

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C1-97-1795

Eugene Banaszewski,

Relator,

vs.

Independent School District 199,

Respondent.

 Filed March 31, 1998

 Writ discharged

 Mulally, Judge*

School Board of Independent School District 199

Carol Ann Eiden, Kelly Dohm, Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin & Willemssen, P.L.L.P., 121 West Main Street, Suite 200, Waconia, MN 55387-1023 (for relator)

John M. Roszak, Bridget E. McKeon, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.

*Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Art. VI, § 10.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 MULALLY, Judge

Relator Eugene Banaszewski filed a petition for a writ of certiorari contending that his constructive discharge, discrimination, and tort claims should be tried in the district court or, in the alternative, that the case should be reversed or remanded to the school district. We discharge the writ of certiorari.

 FACTS

Eugene Banaszewski was a custodian at an elementary school. In August 1997, he submitted a letter of resignation to his supervisor, advising that his resignation would be effective September 30, 1997. The school publicized and filled the vacancy. At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 2, 1997, the school board accepted Banaszewski's resignation and on September 5, 1997, notified him of its action.

Banaszewski then filed a grievance with the school board on September 12, 1997, claiming that he had been constructively discharged and requesting that he be reinstated to his former custodial position. The board denied the request on the ground that the custodial contract between the school district and the union did not permit such a transfer without cause. Banaszewski then petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari.

 D E C I S I O N

"Standing to appeal is conferred when there is injury to a legally protected right." City of St. Paul v. La Clair, 479 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Minn. 1992). The type of decision commonly challenged in a certiorari review in a school district case is an adverse decision by a school board. See, e.g., Harms v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 300, 450 N.W.2d 571, 572 (Minn. 1990) (challenge to school board recall and realignment decisions). In this case, Banaszewski attempts to raise constructive discharge, discrimination, and tort claims on review of the school board decision granting him the relief he sought, acceptance of his resignation. Because Banaszewski was not aggrieved by the school board decision to accept his resignation, he does not have standing to bring this petition.[1]

A party's failure to raise an issue below will usually preclude consideration of the issue on appeal. Gangli v. University of Minn., 512 N.W.2d 918, 923 (Minn. App. 1994). Banaszewski's petition raises claims that were not considered or decided by the school board, and he relies on facts outside the record to support those claims. Because Banaszewski failed to argue these claims to the school board as reflected by the record considered by the school board, we cannot consider them for the first time on certiorari review.

Finally, the appellate courts will not issue advisory opinions. In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989). Banaszewski asks this court to determine that his claims should be reviewed by the district court rather than by certiorari. Banaszewski's claims are based on undetermined and undeveloped facts, and any opinion by this court would be advisory.

  Writ discharged.

[1] Although Banaszewski indicated in his statement of the case that he would challenge the grievance decision, he did not argue it on the merits in his brief and therefore waives consideration of this issue. Koppinger v. City of Fairmont, 311 Minn. 186, 189 n.2, 248 N.W.2d 708, 711 n.2 (1976).