Case Name: Jose Alonso MARTINEZ-MEZA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-25
Citations: 617 F. App'x 809
Docket Number: No. 12-73177
Parties: Jose Alonso MARTINEZ-MEZA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 809–809

Head Matter:
Jose Alonso MARTINEZ-MEZA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73177.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, 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: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and BERZON, 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 Alonso Martinez-Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Meza's motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than one year after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of- a final order of removal), and failed to establish that he warranted an exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (90-day deadline does not apply when alien seeks to apply for asylum and related relief based on "changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality").
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir.2014).
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.