
    Sylvia L. ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75035.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
    Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Matthew Allan Spurlock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sylvia L. Robles, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Robles’ motion to reopen on the ground that it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b), and Robles failed to establish that she was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80; Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir.2011).

We lack jurisdiction over Robles’ contention that the IJ failed to advise her of the consequences of overstaying her voluntary departure period because Robles failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

In light of our disposition, we do not address Robles’ remaining contention.

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.
     