Case Name: Jose Alfredo RAMOS-PEREZ and Estela Flores-Avelino, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 643 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 14-73705
Parties: Jose Alfredo RAMOS-PEREZ and Estela Flores-Avelino, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 644–645

Head Matter:
Jose Alfredo RAMOS-PEREZ and Estela Flores-Avelino, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73705.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 22, 2016.
Jose Alfredo Ramos-Perez, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
Estela Flores-Avelino, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
John Frederick Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Jose Alfredo Ramos-Perez and Estela Flores-Avelino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed over a year after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to establish that any regulatory exception to the time or number limitations for filing a motion to reopen applied, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners' challenges to the merits of the BIA's March 14, 2013, decision denying cancellation of removal because the petition for review is untimely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.2008) (an untimely petition for review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings and to the extent they contend théy are eligible for prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider those contentions. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contentions that removing them would infringe on the constitutional rights of their children, because they did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).
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.