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:T4e1,MEMORANDUM Anthony Michael Jex and Gilda Mae Middleton, natives and citizens of Belize, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than four years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and they failed to establish they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 . We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the BIA should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen their proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 821 (9th Cir.2011). Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 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:T518,

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Michael Jex and Gilda Mae Middleton, natives and citizens of Belize, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than four years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and they failed to establish they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 .

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the BIA should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen their proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 821 (9th Cir.2011).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.