
    Aida Jacinto HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
    Aida Jacinto Hernandez, pro se.
    Sung Uk Park, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Puneet Cheema, Trial, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aida Jacinto Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 questions of law, including constitutional 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 Jacinto Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed five years after proper notice of the final order of removal, and Jacinto Hernandez did not demonstrate grounds for any exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(l)-(2), 1003.38(e); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (the BIA fulfills its statutory duty of service and complies with the federal regulations by mailing its decision to petitioner’s address of record). It follows that Jacinto Hernandez’s due process claim, which rests entirely on the failure to reopen, fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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

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.
     