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:T486,MEMORANDUM Francisco Diaz-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2009). To the extent that Diaz-Gutierrez’s motion could be construed as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Gutierrez’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b8,

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Diaz-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2009).

To the extent that Diaz-Gutierrez’s motion could be construed as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Gutierrez’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

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