
    Jose Antonio MORALES-MARCOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73920
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 03, 2016
    Jose Antonio Morales-Marcos, Pro Se, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, Tracey McDonald, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Morales-Marcos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of.the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Morales-Marcos’ contention that the agency did not consider his claim that he fears for his life if removed to Mexico fails, where the record shows he never raised a claim of fear of returning to Mexico before the agency, and his former attorney informed the IJ that Morales-Marcos had not expressed a fear of returning to Mexico that was cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Morales-Marcos fails to raise, and therefore has waived, all other challenges to the agency’s order of removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

We do not consider the extra-record materials that Morales-Marcos submitted with his brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     