MEMORANDUM **

Martha Ampil Katigbak and Peter Urru-tia Fernandez, natives and citizens of the *723 Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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. 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 petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly one year after the BIA’s August 14, 2006, order dismissing their underlying appeal, and petitioners failed to demonstrate they qualified for an exception to the filing deadline or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.