Petitioner Roberto Canchola-Velez petitions this court to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Canchola-Velez raises two issues for the first time: whether the regulation that prohibits an alien from filing a motion to reopen subsequent to removal is *872 ultra vires because it conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) and whether he should be permitted to file the motion because his “exile” entitles him to the same protections given to refugees who seek asylum. Because Canchola-Velez did not raise the two issues in his motion to reopen or in a subsequent motion to reconsider before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 451, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).

Canchola-Velez also challenges the BIA’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen his removal proceedings. He asserts that his former attorney’s ineffectiveness amounted to a denial of due process that justifies reopening the proceedings on equitable grounds. In Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 675-76 (5th Cir. 2003), we upheld as reasonable the BIA’s interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) (formerly found in 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(d)) as removing its jurisdiction to reopen the removal proceedings of a deported alien. We are “bound by Navarro-Miranda under this circuit’s strict application of stare decisis.” Castillo-Perales v. Mukasey, 298 Fed.Appx. 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2008)(unpublished). Accordingly, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of § 1003.2(d).

It is not necessary to reach the remaining issue raised by Canchola-Velez, whether his former attorney’s ineffectiveness tolled the statute of limitations for filing a motion to reopen. See Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int'l 343 F.3d 401, 411 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2003).

The petition for review is DENIED.