
    Marta GAVRILOVA, a.k.a. Marta Istrin, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Office of Judith L. Wood and Jesse Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sunah Lee, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marta Gavrilova, a native of Ukraine and a citizen of the Russian Federation, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her 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. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gavrilova’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than 13 years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gavri-lova failed to establish that any exception to the filing deadline applied, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), or to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679.

Gavrilova’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider the facts of her case and provide a reasoned explanation for its denial are belied by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gavrilova’s contention regarding equitable estoppel because she failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gavrilova’s remaining contention.

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.
     