
    Vicente DAMIAN-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70897.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Eric Bjotvedt, Law Office of Eric Bjot-vedt, Phoenix, AZ, Vicente Damian-Rodriguez, Phoenix, AZ, pro se, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Channah Farber, DOJ-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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vicente Damian-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that the IJ did not violate Damian-Rodriguez’s due process rights by excluding an untimely submitted therapist’s report from the evi-dentiary record, where Damian-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate that the report may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

Damian-Rodriguez failed to. raise in his opening brief, and therefore waived, any challenges to the BIA’s determination that his video-conference hearing did not violate his due process rights, and to the agency’s hardship determination. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief may be deemed waived).

Damian-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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