
    IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor, Yousif H. Halloum; Iman Y. Halloum, Appellants, v. Katzen & Schuricht; et al., Appellees. In re: Yousif H. Halloum, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum; Appellant, v. Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, Appellee. In re: Yousif H. Halloum, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. Katzen & Schuricht; et al., Appellees.
    No. 16-60097, No. 16-60098, No. 17-60005
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    
      Yousif H. Halloum, Pro Se
    Imán Y. Halloum, Pro Se
    David I. Katzen, Litigation Counsel, Katzen & Schuricht, Alamo, CA, for Appel-lees Katzen & Schuricht, Scott Koenig
    Scott M. Reddie, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, Fresno, CA, for Appellee Hilton A. Ryder
    Michael C. Abel, Scott H. McNutt, Attorneys, McNutt Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees Scott H. McNutt, Michael G. Kasolas
    Michael C. Abel, Pro Se
    Scott H, McNutt, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, 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

In Case No. 16-60097, after an unsuccessful result in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Chapter 7 debtor Yousif H. Hall-oum and non-debtor Imán Y. Halloum appeal pro se from the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to remand or to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over their claims. We have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election Comm’n, 469 F.3d 1236, 1237 (9th Cir. 2006), and we dismiss.

This court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the bankruptcy court’s decisions not to remand and not to abstain are not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b); Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 1997) (a decision not to remand falls within the proscriptive language of § 1452(b) and a decision not to abstain from, hearing a removed action is treated as a decision not to remand).

In Case No. 16-60098, Yousif H. Hall-oum appeals pro se from the BAP’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for leave to sue the chapter 7 trustee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Blixseth v. Brown (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), 841 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to sue the bankruptcy trustee in another forum, because Halloum’s claims concern actions taken by the trustee while he was administering Halloum’s bankruptcy estate. See id. at 1096 (listing factors for the bankruptcy court to consider when deciding whether to grant leave to sue in another forum or retain jurisdiction over the claims; satisfaction of one factor may be a basis for the bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction).

We reject as unsupported by the record Halloum’s contention that he was not required to seek leave from the bankruptcy court.

In Case No. 17-60005, Yousif H. Hall-oum appeals pro se from the BAP’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the bankruptcy trustee from Halloum’s removed action. We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Halloum argues that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 26 L.Ed. 672 (1881), to dismiss the trustee. Like the BAP, we conclude any error to be harmless, because the bankruptcy court further found that the trustee was entitled to judgment on the merits. In his opening brief, Halloum failed to address how the BAP erred by (1) concluding that the bankruptcy court committed harmless error or (2) affirming dismissal of the trustee on the alternate ground. Thus, Halloum has waived his challenge to the BAP’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (court of appeals reviews only issues that are argued specifically and distinctly in party’s opening brief).

We reject as without merit Halloum’s contentions that the trustee caused him to violate 11 U.S.C. § 707, and that the BAP failed to make findings.

We do not consider Halloum’s contention regarding the bankruptcy court’s contempt order because Halloum voluntarily dismissed his appeal of that order.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening briefs, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

APPEAL No. 16-60097 is DISMISSED.

APPEAL No. 16-60098 is AFFIRMED.

APPEAL No. 17-60005 is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     