
    Claudio JUAREZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Claudio Juarez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Mendez’s motion to reopen where he offered no new material evidence in support of the motion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and where Juarez-Mendez departed the United States after relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), was previously denied by the BIA in the exercise of discretion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(d), (k); see also Avila-Sanchez, 509 F.3d at 1040-41 (9th Cir.2007).

To the extent Juarez-Mendez challenges the BIA’s May 28, 1997, order sustaining the government’s appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

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.
     