
    Guy Afek OHAYON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72631.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 4, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 18, 2015.
    Stacy Tolchin, Law Offices of Stacy Tol-chin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    ÓIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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: KLEINFELD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Guy Afek Ohayon seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordering Ohayon removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). Ohayon was charged with two grounds of removability: unauthorized employment in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i); and overstaying a visa in violation of § 1227(a)(1)(C)(ii). In his opening brief, Ohayon challenges the visa overstay charge on due process grounds. Ohayon, however, does not challenge the unauthorized employment charge, which he admitted before the IJ. In light of Ohayon’s failure to address this alternate ground of removal, we need not reach his challenge to the visa overstay charge because the unauthorized employment charge alone is sufficient to support removal. See Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2011) (denying a petition for review where an alien failed to address an alternate ground for the BIA’s holding). In his reply brief, Ohayon argues he should be allowed to withdraw his concession of the visa overstay charge, but he has failed to present any evidence showing that the “egregious circumstances” required for such a withdrawal are present. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     