
    Jose Arturo MEDELLIN-LOYOLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70558.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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

Jose Arturo Medellin-Loyola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Medellin-Loyola’s motion. Construed as a motion to reconsider, the motion failed to specify any error of fact or law in the prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”). Construed as a motion to reopen, the motion failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2010) (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima facie case for relief).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Medellin-Loyola’s request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Co varrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir.2009).

To the extent Medellin-Loyola challenges the agency’s September 16, 2013, order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, we deny the government’s motion for judicial notice of documents outside the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 n. 13 (9th Cir.1998) (judicial notice is inappropriate where the facts to be noticed are not relevant to the disposition of the issues before the court).

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.
     