
    Laura ZENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 16, 2013.
    Laura Zens, Chandler, AZ, pro se.
    Douglas Allen Fletcher, Special Assistant U.S., Denver, CO, Michael A. Johns, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Laura Zens appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We must affirm the denial of benefits unless it is based on legal error or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Zens waived the argument that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to fully and fairly develop the record because she failed to raise this argument before the district court. See Warre v. Comrn’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir.2006).

The ALJ did not err by failing sua sponte to offer Zens a video-conference hearing because the record does not show that Zens demonstrated diminished cognitive abilities at the in-person hearing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.936(c)-(f). Finally, Zens waived the argument that the Appeals Council erred in its evaluation of the new evidence she submitted after the ALJ issued his decision because she failed to raise the argument in her opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     