
    Lorena G. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72098.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 29, 2015.
    Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sabatino F. Leo, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision widiout oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorena G. Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Hernandez failed to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador warranting reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986-87.

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

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), -525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

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.
     