*1 Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Dewan Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review *2 the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand’s motion to reopen as time and number barred, where it was his third such motion, he filed it more than eleven years after the filing deadline, and he failed to demonstrate that any exception to the time or number bars was warranted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)-(iv) & (3); Avagyan , 646 F.3d at 679.
Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not reach Chand’s contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
Chand’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-71842
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).