
    Suriana LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-4150-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 1, 2009.
    H. Raymond Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Monica G. Antoun, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, REENA RAGGI and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Suriana Lin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the July 24, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Suriana Lin, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 24, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Although there are exceptions to the time or numerical limits applied to motions to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), there is no exception based on a change in the law. The BIA, however, has held that it may exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen an alien’s removal proceedings based on “a fundamental change in the principles of the law of asylum.” In re G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999). We lack jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA not to exercise its sua sponte authority because such a decision is “entirely discretionary.” Azmond Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006).

The BIA found that Lin’s motion was untimely, and rejected her argument that our decision in Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2007) represented a change in the law of asylum sufficient to warrant sua sponte reopening of her proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision. See Azmond Ali, 448 F.3d at 518.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).  