
    Maria Rosalia SOLORIZANO-RENDEROS, a/k/a Maria Rosalio Solorzano-Renderos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71520.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, 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, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Rosalia Solorizano-Renderos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida, v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part, the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Solorizano-Renderos’ motion to reconsider as untimely because she filed the motion more than four years after the BIA issued its final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s May 17, 2002, order dismissing Solorizano-Renderos’ direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 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.
     