Case Name: Arturo ARIAS-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 14-72257
Parties: Arturo ARIAS-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
Arturo ARIAS-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Marivel Cantu-Madril, Esquire, Cantu Madril Law, P.L.L.C., Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
Regina Byrd, Esquire, Oil, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arturo Arias-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision granting voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
Arias-Flores does not raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency's finding that he withdrew his application for cancellation of removal and waived the opportunity to apply for that relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
Arias-Flores' contention that he was denied due process by the IJ during his removal proceedings is not supported by the record. See Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 620-21 (due process claims require showing that proceedings were "so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case") (internal quotation marks and citation 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.