
    Sonia MOLINA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72199
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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, Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sonia Molina-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina-Alvarado’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than nineteen years after the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(l) (an order of deportation entered in absentia may only be rescinded upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days of the order if the alien demonstrates exceptional circumstances). Additionally, Molina-Alvarado did not show that notice was improper where she was properly served with the order to show cause and notice of hearing, and was given written notice and was read in her native language the consequences of failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1993) (requiring written notice of the time and place of proceedings, as well as written notice of the consequences of failing to appear).

Contrary to Molina-Alvarado’s contention, the BIA’s decision in Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349 (BIA 1998), does not provide an independent basis for untimely reopening of her deportation proceedings. See id. at 357 (motion to reopen in absen-tia proceeding to apply for new relief is subject to timeliness requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Molina-Alvarado’s request for remand for purposes of seeking prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     