
    Maria Isabel MAGALLON-CARDENAS, aka: Mary Magallon, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    Raul M. Montes, Esq., Montes & Montes, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Isabel Magallon-Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. 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 in denying Magallon-Cardenas’ motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April 23, 2003, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to address Magal-lon-Cardenas’ contention that intervening case law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir.2005), effected a fundamental change in the law warranting an exercise of the BIA’s sua sponte authority to reopen. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1134-35 (BIA 1999).

To the extent Magallon-Cardenas challenges the BIA’s April 23, 2003, order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). 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.
     