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:T46e,MEMORANDUM Agripina Iancu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen her removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We dismiss the petition for review. Iancu concedes that the motion to reconsider was untimely and failed to point out any errors of law or fact in the IJ’s denial of her motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23 (b)(l)-(2), but contends the IJ erred and abused her discretion in not construing her motion to reconsider as a request for sua sponte reopening, and that the motion to reopen was based on exceptional circumstances rather than on lack of notice. We lack jurisdiction to review these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th cir. 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented to the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T49b,

MEMORANDUM

Agripina Iancu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen her removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We dismiss the petition for review.

Iancu concedes that the motion to reconsider was untimely and failed to point out any errors of law or fact in the IJ’s denial of her motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23 (b)(l)-(2), but contends the IJ erred and abused her discretion in not construing her motion to reconsider as a request for sua sponte reopening, and that the motion to reopen was based on exceptional circumstances rather than on lack of notice. We lack jurisdiction to review these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th cir. 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.