
    Richard BERNARD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Martin R. Robles-Avila, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Oil, Jason Wisecup, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration' Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. 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

Richard Bernard, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bernard’s untimely motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status for battered spouses, because Bernard failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). The record belies Bernard’s contention that the BIA did not adequately explain the basis for its extraordinary circumstances determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (requiring only that the BIA announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable review).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by determining that Bernard’s motion to reopen did not warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling is available where a petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Bernard’s unexhausted contentions regarding exceptional circumstances and extreme hardship determinations in relation to his stepson. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).

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.
     