
    Leticia Perez GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 4, 2011.
    Leticia Perez Gonzalez, N. Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Richard Zanfardino, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leticia Perez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, 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 Perez Gonzalez’s motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief she sought. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003).

We are not persuaded that Perez Gonzalez’s removal would result in a deprivation of her daughter’s constitutional rights. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978) (rejecting the contention that a parent’s “deportation order would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the constitutional rights of the child”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Gonzalez’s contentions regarding changed circumstances in Mexico, as well as her contention that the immigration judge should have reopened proceedings sua sponte, because she failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 13, 2008, order because the instant 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.
     