
    Jaime SALDANA-GUTIERREZ, a.k.a. Jaime Gutierres Saldana, a.k.a. Jaime Gutierrez Saldana, a.k.a. Jaime Gutierrezd Saldana, a.k.a. Jaime Saldana, a.k.a. Jaime G. Saldana, a.k.a. Jaime Saldana Gutierrea, a.k.a. Jaime Saldana Gutierrez, a.k.a. Jaime Salidana Lotierrez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71569.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2018.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
    Jaime Saldana-Gutierrez, San Juan Capistrano, CA, pro se.
    Todd J. Cochran, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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

Jaime Saldana-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that, under the modified categorical approach, Saldana-Gutierrez’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon with a two-year sentence of imprisonment qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E). See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2001).

In his opening brief, Saldana-Gutierrez fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

Saldana-Gutierrez’s contention that his removal was unlawful is without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B).

We lack jurisdiction to review the claims raised in Saldana-Gutierrez’s July 2012 motion to reopen because he did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s order denying that motion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We also lack jurisdiction to review Saldana-Gutierrez’s remaining contentions because they are unexhausted. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.

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