
    Olga Estela BARRERA ZAPETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    
      Filed Jan. 13, 2010.
    Olga Estela Barrera Zapeta, Bellflower, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olga Estela Barrera Zapeta, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrera Zapeta’s motion as a motion to reconsider. The motion failed to specify an error of fact or law with respect to the BIA’s prior determination that her February 1, 2006, motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely the motion as a motion to reopen where it was filed 3 years after the BIA’s order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Elkimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrera Zapeta’s remaining contentions.

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.
     