
    YANG LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 10, 2010.
    Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Law Offices of Reeves & Associates, Lorena Lar-ios Shah, Esquire, Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Monica Antoun, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as time- and number-barred because it was Liu’s second motion to reopen and it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)-(C) (motion to reopen normally limited to one and must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and Liu did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Rumbearía, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 20, 2007, order denying Liu’s first motion to reopen because he did not timely petition for review of that decision. See 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     