Case Name: Jaciel RODARTE-VENEGAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-14
Citations: 624 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 13-73442
Parties: Jaciel RODARTE-VENEGAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Jaciel RODARTE-VENEGAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73442.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
Lisa Anderson, Varzandeh Anderson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Brendan Paul Hogan, Esq., Oil, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaciel Rodarte-Venegas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' 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. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely, where Rodarte-Venegas received proper notice of the hearing, filed his motion to reopen more than three years after his final order of removal, and failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (c)(7)(C)(i) (setting deadlines for motions to reopen); id. at (b)(5)(A) (allowing written notice to alien's counsel of record); Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (describing due diligence).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's decision not to reopen sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir.2014).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ro-darte-Venegas' contention that his case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecuto-rial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Rodarte-Venegas' remaining contentions.
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.