
    Elga Lucrecia SACBA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70427.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
    Patricia Vargas, Patricia Vargas & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for 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

Elga Lucrecia Sacba, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Sacba fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that her motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Saeba’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where Sacba failed to supply any evidence of a material change in circumstances in Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

To the extent Sacba challenges the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Saeba’s contentions regarding her eligibility for asylum.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     