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:T4e8,Maria Rosalia Solorizano-Renderos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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 reconsider, Cano-Merida, v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part, the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Solorizano-Renderos’ motion to reconsider as untimely because she filed the motion more than four years after the BIA issued its final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s May 17, 2002, order dismissing Solorizano-Renderos’ direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). 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:T51a,

Maria Rosalia Solorizano-Renderos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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 reconsider, Cano-Merida, v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part, the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Solorizano-Renderos’ motion to reconsider as untimely because she filed the motion more than four years after the BIA issued its final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s May 17, 2002, order dismissing Solorizano-Renderos’ direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.