SUMMARY ORDER

Sousam Chia, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 5, 2014, decision of the BIA, affirming the September 16, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”), denying his motion to reopen. In re Sousam Chia, No. A073 033 461 (B.I.A. Mar. 5, 2014), affg No. A073 033 461 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 16, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this. case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness,” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006).

It is undisputed that Chia’s motion to reopen, filed almost 13 years after his final deportation order, was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). Chia argues that the untimeliness of his motion to reopen should be excused, because his deportation order was barred by res judicata. But a motion to reopen based on purported res judicata does not fall within any of the *41 statutory or regulatory exceptions to the timeliness requirements for motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § - 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); see also Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009) (emphasizing “that untimely motions to reopen to pursue an application for adjustment of status ... do not fall within any of the statutory or regulatory exceptions to the time limits for motions to reopen”). Accordingly, the BIA and IJ did not err by concluding that Chia’s motion to reopen was barred as untimely.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. -