
    Jose Luis ONTIVEROS-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Karen Y. Stewart, Kathryn M. McKinney, Mark Christopher Walters, Esq., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Ontiveros-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ontiveros-Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s April 19, 2002 order dismissing his appeal, and he presented no evidence or argument that he qualified for an exception to the motions deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motions to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision).

Ontiveros-Gonzalez’s contention that the BIA deprived him of due process is unpersuasive.

As the untimeliness of the motion is dispositive, we do not reach OntiverosGonzalez’s contention regarding voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     