
    Francisco Ruben LUGO-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Na 13-71076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 30, 2015.
    Alena Ann Tupper, Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    Stephen Elliott, Esquire, Oil, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See'Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Ruben Lugo-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lugo-Gonzalez’s motion to reopen as to his Convention Against Torture claim because the evidence he provided was not particular to him and did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the Mexican government or with its consent or acquiescence. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to. establish a prima facie case for the relief sought). Lugo-Gonzalez does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We reject Lugo-Gonzalez’s contention that 'the BIA misstated the record. .Thus, we deny the petition for review.

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