
    Pascual Aouilino GAYOSO BERNAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Pascual Aouilino Gayoso Bernal, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, Oil, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pascual Aouilino Gayoso-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture as untimely because he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), he faded to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h), and he did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that Mexican aliens returning home from the United States did not qualify as a cognizable social group for purposes of asylum or withholding of removal).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s June 7, 2005, order dismissing petitioner’s direct appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     