MEMORANDUM

Hugo Jacobo-Hector, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jacobo-Hector’s motions to reopen and reconsider as untimely where the motions were filed over two years after the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline to file a motion to reopen); (6)(B) (30-day deadline to file a motion to reconsider).

We reject Jacobo-Hector’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions, or applied an incorrect legal standard. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

Jacobo-Hector’s contention that the BIA’s denial of the motions violated his children’s constitutional rights is foreclosed by Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978) (rejecting the contention that a parent’s “deportation order would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the constitutional rights of the child”).

We lack jurisdiction to review Jaeobo-Hector’s request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

We do not reach Jacobo-Hector’s contentions regarding eligibility for relief, sua sponte reopening, and changed circumstances in Mexico. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

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