Fernando Lozano-Santos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 895 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Santos’s motion to remand to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture where he did not submit applications for relief, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(1); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), and failed to establish a prima facie case
holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the deadline for a motion to reopen where the petitioner waited 20 months to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when the petitioner presented a long list of newspaper articles and references to the  state department country reports but failed to explain how these developments would affect the petitioner and demonstrate the individualized fear of persecution required for asylum holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence