
    Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ TELLEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Juan Carlos Hernandez Tellez, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Hernandez Tellez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen because the motion failed to meet the regulatory requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”).

To the extent Petitioner seeks review of the BIA’s April 20, 2006 order dismissing his appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     