
    Alvin M. NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 15-70667
    15-71796
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 2, 2017
    Alvin M. Navarro, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial, Brendan Paul' Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent,
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 these consolidated petitions for review, Alvin M, Navarro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed- by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In No. 15-70667, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and in No. 15-71796, we deny the petition for review.

. Navarro’s contention that the BIA did not use the proper standard in making its hardship determination is not supported, where the record shows the BIA conducted a future-oriented analysis. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir.' 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives) (emphasis in original). '

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Navarro failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Navarro has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

IN No. 15-70667; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

IN No. 15-71796; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     