
    Pushpamalar SATCHITHANANTHAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70620
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Stacy Tolchin, Law Offices of Stacy Tol-chin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Alison Marie Igoe, Esquire, Principal Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Satchithananthan’s third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically-barred where the motion was filed more than nine years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Satchithananthan failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Sri Lanka to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Satchithan-anthan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider record evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte authority); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

Finally, we reject as without merit Satchithananthan’s contention that intervening case law requires reconsideration of this court’s decision in Satchithananthan v. Holder, 508 Fed.Appx. 652, 653 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     