
    LI ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Li Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than five years after the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion within 180 days), and Zhu failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

Zhu failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand her case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

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