With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for purposes of this appeal. See El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 216 F.3d 29, 31, 32 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.2000). In doing so, we consider only the allegations of the (first) amended complaint. Although World Wide indicated in its notice of appeal that it planned to challenge the district court’s refusal to permit it to file a second amended complaint, see Fed. R.Crv.P.- 15(a), it failed to do so until its reply brief. As we have said many times before, a party waives its right to challenge a ruling of the district court if it fails to make that challenge in its opening brief. See, e.g., Students Against Genocide v. Department of State, 257 F.3d 828, 834-35 (D.C.Cir.2001); Board of Regents v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214, 1221 (D.C.Cir.1996); see also Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). World Wide contends that none of the

A: holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived
B: holding issues referred to in the statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief are deemed waived
C: holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges
D: holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived
A.