
    Bambang MARIHOT, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bambang Marihot, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marihot’s motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the final agency decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in refusing to reconsider the prior adverse credibility determination.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Mari-hot’s unexhausted contention that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004)

Marihot’s motion for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

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.
     