
    Camilla TELLUSELLE, a.k.a. Camilla Elizabeth Charpentier, a.k.a. C. Alexandra Telluselle, a.k.a. Camilla Alexandra Telluselle, a.k.a. Camilla A. Tuleselle, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
    Camilla Alexandra Telluselle, pro se.
    OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Camilla Telluselle, a native and citizen of Sweden, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Hama-zaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Telluselle failed to maintain her F-l nonimmigrant status where she testified that she was not enrolled at Hawaii Pacific University or any other educational institution during the spring 2011 semester. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)® (describing requirements for maintaining foreign student status, including “pursuing a full course of study at an educational institution”). The agency therefore properly found Telluselle removable for failing to maintain her nonimmigrant status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)®.

Telluselle’s contention that she was denied due process during her removal proceedings is not supported by the record. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case”).

Telluselle failed to raise in her opening brief, and therefore waived, any challenges to the BIA’s determination that she is not eligible for relief from removal and to the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand. 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).

Telluselle’s request that the court first review her civil lawsuit against Hawaii Pacific University or hold her ease in abeyance pending the results of her appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawaii Pacific University is denied as moot. See Telluselle v. Hawaii Pac. Univ., No. 12-17191, 528 Fed.Appx. 739, 2013 WL 2953053 (9th Cir. June 17, 2013).

Telluselle’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.
     