
    Rosa Maria GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72962.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 7, 2016.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Sham-ieh and Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Maria Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s 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 Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because it was untimely and numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gonzalez failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Gonzalez’s contentions that the BIA did not consider her evidence properly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     