
    Jose Enrique Valdes MORENO and Enrique De Jesus Valdes, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70995
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 03, 2016
    Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer A. Singer, John D. Williams, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Enrique Valdes Moreno and Enrique de Jesus Valdes, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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. Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to remand, where petitioners failed .to establish prima-facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005) (an applicant must generally show an individualized, rather than a generalized, risk of persecution to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant must establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured in the country of removal to establish prima facie eligibility for protection under CAT).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to fully evaluate their arguments. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding membership in a particular social group.

Petitioners’ motion to withdraw Valdes’ pending motion to lift the stay of removal and dismiss the petition for review is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 3 6-3.
     