
    Linet Gisela MENENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 20, 2011.
    
    Filed July 22, 2011.
    Alan Hutchison, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    Walter Manning Evans, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, A. Marisa Chun, 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: HUG and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Linet Gisela Menendez (Menendez), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.

By failing to raise the issue in her opening brief, Menendez waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that the second motion to reopen was time-barred, number-barred, and did not meet the exception to the filing requirements as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that failure to address issue constitutes waiver); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a) (listing the requirements for appellants’ briefs). This unchallenged ground for the BIA’s denial of the motion was an independently adequate basis to support its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (observing that the BIA has broad discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen and listing “at least three independent grounds” that support such a denial) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that to prevail on a motion to reopen, the movant must “clear four hurdles” and that “[fjailure to meet any one ... would support the BIA’s denial of [the] motion to reopen.”) (citation omitted).

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