
    Eugenio CONTRERAS-PELAYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73100.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 18, 2011.
    Garbis N. Etmekjian, Etmekjian Law Offices, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Shieh, 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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eugenio Contreras-Pelayo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Contreras-Pelayo’s motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).

The court lacks jurisdiction to review Contreras-Pelayo’s ineffective assistance of counsel contention because he did not exhaust that claim before the BIA. See Buga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying April 15, 2008, order dismissing Contreras-Pelayo’s direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     