MEMORANDUM **

Seth Gyamfi, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We *471 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Gyamfi’s motion where, construed as a motion to reopen, it was unsupported by material, previously unavailable evidence that could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing, and where, construed as a motion to reconsider, it was filed beyond the thirty-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (requirements for motion to reopen); id. at (b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within thirty days of final order of removal); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision riot to reopen sua sponte. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Gyamfi’s remaining contentions.

Because Gyamfi did not submit a proposed supplemental opening brief, as required by the court’s August 11, 2014, order, we deny his August 8, 2014, motion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.