
    Gerardo BRITO-BARRIENTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Enitan Otunla, Trial, 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: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Brito-Barrientos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Mousisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Brito-Barrientos does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s hardship determination with respect to his initial claim for cancellation 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).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Brito-Barrientos’ motion to remand with regard to cancellation of removal, where he failed to establish that the evidence submitted was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Brito-Barrientos’ motion to remand with regard to withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief, where he failed to establish that the evidence submitted was either previously unavailable or showed a material change since his last hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Najmabadi 597 F.3d at 986.

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