
    Emilio AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72564.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Emilio Aguirre, South Gate, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, 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: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Emilio Aguirre, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguirre’s fifth motion to reopen, filed over seven years after his order of removal became final, as time- and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). Nor has Aguirre established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre’s asylum claim, where he failed to exhaust the claim before the agency in his fifth motion to reopen. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

Aguirre’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

To the extent Aguirre seeks to supplement the administrative record, any such request is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (limiting review to “the administrative record on which the order of removal is based”).

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

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.
     