
    Assaf MOUHANNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74692.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
    
    Filed March 9, 2009.
    Phillip Frederick Fishman, Fishman, Binsfeld & Bachmeier, P.A., Bloomington, MN, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioner’s motion to reopen to apply for asylum failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Lebanon that is material to petitioner and his circumstances. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima facie asylum claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted in part because the questions raised by this petition are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

As to the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed in part.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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.
     