
    Fahri XHOLI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72959
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    June 22, 2016
    Michael P. DiRaimondo, DiRaimondo & Masi, LLP, Melville, NY, for Petitioner.
    Brett F. Kinney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and' FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fahri Xholi, a native and citizen of Albania, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de novo due process claims violations, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for. review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Xholi’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed twelve years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Albania to overcome the regulatory time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Xholi’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by ignoring evidence or failing to analyze his claim properly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s refusal. to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for- publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     