
    Nelson BENITEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70714
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Elizabeth P. Uribe, Esquire, Attorney, Uribe & Uribe, A Professional Law Corporation, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner
    Suzanne N. Nardone, Esquire, 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: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nelson Benitez-Cruz’s opposed motion to stay appellate proceedings or in the alternative refer this case to mediation (Docket Entry No, 27) is denied.

Benitez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Benitez-Cruz’s second motion to reopen as time and number-barred where it was filed over seventeen years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Benitez-Cruz failed to establish that he qualified for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject Benitez-Cruz’s contention that the BIA erred by not addressing his application for temporary protected status in its order denying his motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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