
    Jose Luis JUAREZ-ZAMORANO; Gabriela Murillo Juarez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71744.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Brooke Maurer, Nancy Ellen Friedman, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Juarez-Zamorano and Gabriela Murillo Juarez, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they warranted equitable tolling, see Valeriano, 474 F.3d at 674-75.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1157-59 (9th Cir. 2002).

We also lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA properly reduced petitioners’ voluntary departure period in its January 8, 2004 order, because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to reopen is not supported by the record.

Petitioners’ motion for stay of voluntary departure is denied.

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.
     