
    Michael John BURROWS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73883.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Michael John Burrows, I, Canoga Park, CA, pro se.
    Sheri Robyn Glaser, Vanessa Lefort, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael John Burrows, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and reissue its prior decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Burrows’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April 19, 2005, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Burrows failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 894 (deadline can be equitable tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

To the extent Burrows seeks review of the BIA’s April 19, 2005, decision denying his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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.
     