MEMORANDUM **

Susana Plancarte-De Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her 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 and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Plancarte-De Padilla’s motion-to reopen as untimely, where it was filed 14 years after her final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and Plan-carte-De Padilla failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Plancarte-De Padilla’s contention that the BIA failed to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling is not supported by the record.

To the extent Plancarte-De Padilla is challenging the IJ’s sua sponte determination, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.