
    Manuel CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73681.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 27, 20Í4.
    Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sunah Lee, Trial, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Carrillo fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that notice of his October 3, 2005, hearing was proper. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Carrillo’s motion to reopen as untimely where Carrillo filed his motion more than five years after his in absentia removal order was issued. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (an alien has 180 days to file a motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia order if the alien can show that he failed to appear for the hearing due to exceptional circumstances).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Carrillo’s contention regarding equitable tolling of the motion to reopen filing deadline because he failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080.

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.
     