“was before the Board when we issued our prior decision.” Further, the BIA held that because Maharaj was ineligible for asylum on firm resettlement grounds, the evidence of changed country conditions was only relevant to Maharaj’s withholding of deportation and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. The BIA concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for withholding of deportation or CAT relief and therefore reopening was not warranted. Maharaj timely appeals the BIA decision affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. Maharaj did not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen in his opening brief and thus has waived appeal on that issue. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). II A finding of “firm resettlement” is a
holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that a petitioners failure to address the bias denial of a motion to reopen in the argument portion of his opening brief on appeal waived the issue