
    Shabbir Ahmed Usman SAIYED, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60766
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 13, 2014.
    Sherin Thawer, Esq., Managing Senior Counsel, Irving, TX, for Petitioner.
    Julia Jennings Tyler, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Shabbir Ahmed Usman Saiyed, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the June 2013 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings or to reconsider its prior decision denying reopening. Saiyed argues that the BIA should have reopened removal proceedings or reconsidered its prior denial of reopening because he suffers from emotional and cognitive limitations that prevented him from properly representing himself in removal proceedings. Because he raises this argument for the first time in his petition for review and therefore has failed to administratively exhaust the claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1); Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir.2010). Additionally, Sai-yed asserts that the BIA should have reopened his removal proceedings sua sponte because of his cognitive and emotional limitations, his lack of counsel in the proceedings, and errors in the Notice to Appear. We likewise have no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir.2008).

Further, Saiyed contends that the BIA should have reopened his removal proceedings because the Notice to Appear contained incorrect information. The Government withdrew the charges in the Notice to Appear and the immigration judge found Saiyed removable based instead on later-filed additional charges related to his 2006 entry. Saiyed does not address the BIA’s determination that his motion to reopen was both time and number barred. His misguided arguments fail to show the BIA’s decision to be absent of any “perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005). He has thus shown no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. See Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir.2010).

Lastly, Saiyed claims that this court should order the proceedings reopened, terminated, or administratively closed. We have no jurisdiction over such a claim. See § 1252(g).

The petition for review of the BIA’s decision is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     