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:T4ae,MEMORANDUM Maria Cecilia Hurtado-Castellanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hurtado-Castellanos’s motion to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eight years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and she failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 . We lack jurisdiction to review Hurtado-Castellanos’s contention that the BIA should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen her proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011). 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. 36-3.24:T4e0,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Cecilia Hurtado-Castellanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hurtado-Castellanos’s motion to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eight years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and she failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 .

We lack jurisdiction to review Hurtado-Castellanos’s contention that the BIA should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen her proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

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.