the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen because it considered the new evidence presented regarding their daughter’s educational and medical difficulties, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that it was not material because it did not indicate that her condition was severe or that she would be unable to obtain assistance or treatment in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall not be granted unless it appears to the [BIA] that evidence sought to be offered is material”). Petitioners have waived any contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to discuss the issue in the body of their opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This
holding issues referred to in the statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief are deemed waived holding that issues not raised in a partys opening brief are waived holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived holding that issue raised in conclusion of brief but omitted from statement of issues and body of brief was not preserved