
    Norma Cristina CAL and Roeli Galindo Cal Carreto, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Norma Cristina Cal, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
    
      Roeli Galindo Gal Carreto, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
    Benjamin Zeitlin, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norma Cristina Cal and Roeli Galindo Cal Carreto, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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. Narjmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, where petitioners did not establish that exceptional circumstances excused their failure to appear at their hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien, including battery, extreme cruelty, death, or serious illness of the alien or their immediate relatives, but not less compelling circumstances).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ March 8, 2016, request for prosecuto-rial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order).

To the extent petitioners contend they are eligible for relief, we need not reach this remaining contention in light of our disposition.

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.
     