
    Tania Raquel MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Dave Linn, Esquire Thorp, WA, pro se.
    OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tania Raquel Molina, 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Molina fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s reasons for denying her December 2010 motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Molina’s sole contention that she suffered ineffective assistance of counsel, where she did not raise this issue before the BIA in her December 2010 motion to reopen and therefore failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in this petition for review. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 24, 2011, order denying Molina’s motion to reconsider and reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 815 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

In light of our disposition, we need not consider Molina’s contention that the rationale of Mezo v. Holder, 615 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.2010), applies to her case, because this concerns her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is not properly before us.

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.
     