
    Robert Bolotaulo FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73512.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 14, 2012.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Nairi Simonian Gruzenski, 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: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Bolotaulo Francisco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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, and review de novo due process claims. 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 Francisco’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than thirteen years after the final order of removal and did not qualify for an exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

Francisco’s contention that the BIA violated due process by denying his motion to reopen fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim).

To the extent Francisco contends that the BIA should have invoked its authority to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review his contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Francisco’s unexhausted contention that his status as a derivative beneficiary of an earlier-filed visa petition entitles him to reopening. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction over contentions not raised before the BIA).

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.
     