MEMORANDUM ***
Walter A. Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his untimely motion to reopen his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIAs denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.
We previously remanded so that the BIA could consider “Ayalas family-membership basis for relief” for his motion to reopen, which the BIA had overlooked. Ayala v. Whitaker, 747 F. Appx 549, 550 (9th Cir. 2018).
On remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayalas motion to reopen because Ayala failed to show that he was prima facie eligible for asylum or withholding of removal based on his family membership. See Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204 (stating that “[t]o prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,” a petitioner must show, among other things, “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought” (citation omitted)); Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on a particular social group, an applicants burden includes showing “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular social group,” which “is often referred to as the ‘nexus’ requirement” (citation omitted)).
In his opening brief, Ayala does not raise the BIAs determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for CAT protection, and therefore he has waived that issue. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.