
    Alberto MARIN-ARIZPE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this casé is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Marin-Arizpe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012). We deny the petition for review.

Marin-Arizpe does not challenge the determination that his California Penal Code § 288(a) conviction is an aggravated felony that renders him removable. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). This court’s jurisdiction is therefore limited to reviewing colorable questions of law or constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).

Marin-Arizpe’s contention that the IJ violated his due process right to a full and fair hearing lacks merit, where the IJ questioned Marin-Arizpe to discover if there were any forms of relief available to him and determined there were not, and where Marin-Arizpe has not established prima facie eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Vilchez, 682 F.3d at 1199 (“A due process violation occurs where (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

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