
    Osama Abdo MKHAEIL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    Osama Abdo Mkhaeil, Upland, CA, pro se.
    Joanne E. Johnson, 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. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Osama Abdo Mkhaeil, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.S3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over Mkhaeil’s due process claims and his contentions regarding changed country conditions in Syria because he failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mkhaeil’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than two and a half years after the BIA’s order dismissing his underlying appeal, and did not fall within any exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2)-(3); see also Matter of Ve-larde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to reopen to adjust status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen may be granted if, inter alia, the motion is timely filed).

We do not consider Mkhaeil’s remaining contentions regarding the BIA’s December 8, 2004, order because these contentions were rejected in Mkhaeil v. Gonzales, 222 Fed.Appx. 594 (9th Cir.2007).

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