
    David Octavio URRUTIA-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72927.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2015.
    David Octavio Urrutia-Guerra, Placen-tia, CA, pro se.
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Octavio Urrutia-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for special rule cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2013). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Urru-tia-Guerra’s contentions regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on a particular social group comprised of Guatemalans returning to Guatemala from the United States, where Urrutia-Guerra failed to exhaust these contentions before the BIA. 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).

Urrutia-Guerra has not raised, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of special rule cancellation of removal and CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     