
    Manuel GAMIZ-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Shoreline, WA, for Petitioner.
    Donald A. Couvillon, Esquire, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Gamiz-Sosa, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Although he argues the merits of his cancellation of removal claim, Gamiz-Sosa does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s dispos-itive finding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n. 5 (9th Cir.2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus we deny the petition for review as to cancellation of removal.

Similarly, Gamiz-Sosa makes no arguments challenging the BIA’s dispositive finding that he failed to show or allege the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to protect him from the individuals he fears. See id. Thus, we deny the petition as to Gamiz-Sosa’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Gamiz-Sosa’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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