
    Paula Juan CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73569
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Mike Singh Sethi, Esquire, Attorney, Sethi Law Group, Orange, CA, for Petitioner
    Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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

Paula Juan Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Juan Chavez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than twelve years after her final administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Juan Chavez failed to invoke any exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011).

To the extent Juan Chavez challenges the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588-89 (9th Cir. 2016).

To the extent Juan Chavez asks this court to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, that authority rests with the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

In light of this disposition, we do' not reach Juan Chavez’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief.

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.
     