22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T42d,MEMORANDUM Alvaro Chavez-Acevedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar-ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez-Acevedo’s second motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order of removal and Chavez-Acevedo failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exceptions to the 90-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3) (listing exceptions to the time limitation). Chavez-Acevedo’s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45f,

MEMORANDUM

Alvaro Chavez-Acevedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar-ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez-Acevedo’s second motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order of removal and Chavez-Acevedo failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exceptions to the 90-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3) (listing exceptions to the time limitation).

Chavez-Acevedo’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.