
    BI YING LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-1371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 20, 2013.
    Mouren Wu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant, Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Bi Ying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the March 9, 2012, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Lin’s March 2011 motion was untimely and number-barred, as it was her third motion to reopen, filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final administrative decision. Although these time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to reopen if it is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), in her most recent motion to reopen, Lin did not assert a material change in country conditions in China, but rather requested that the BIA exercise its discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte.

The BIA declined to reopen sua sponte and we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, as it is “entirely discretionary.” See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006). Although we may remand “where the [BIA] may have declined to exercise its sua sponte authority because it misperceived the legal background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening would necessarily fail,” Malvmood, v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir.2009), there is no indication that the BIA misperceived the law in this case.

We have reviewed Lin’s other arguments and they do not alter our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to hear her petition. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.  