Case Name: Nerissa Padilla HANICK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-11
Citations: 549 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 12-72630
Parties: Nerissa Padilla HANICK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 672–672

Head Matter:
Nerissa Padilla HANICK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72630.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 11, 2013.
Alan Hutchison, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Nerissa Padilla Hanick, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanick's motion to reopen where she failed to demonstrate her additional evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).
In her opening brief, Hanick fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA's denial of her motion to reconsider as untimely. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
Hanick's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.