
    Veronica, ORTEGA-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73494.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
    
      Philippe M. Dwelshauvers, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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

Veronica Ortega-Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over one year after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Ortega did not establish that any of the enumerated exceptions to the timeliness rule apply, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), nor did she show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

The record belies Ortega’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to offer a reasoned explanation for its denial. See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891 (9th Cir.2002) (unless BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law, Court of Appeals should not disturb its ruling).

Finally, Ortega’s contention that the agency violated her due process right to family unity is foreclosed by De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2009).

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