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:T439,MEMORANDUM Maria Rivera-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivera-Marquez’s motion to reopen on the ground that it was time-and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and she did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico in order to qualify for an exception to the filing limitations, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 . We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen Rivera-Marquez’s proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46b,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Rivera-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivera-Marquez’s motion to reopen on the ground that it was time-and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and she did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico in order to qualify for an exception to the filing limitations, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 .

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen Rivera-Marquez’s proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

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