Rita Bety Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the *2 petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia- Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than three years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Garcia-Perez failed to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi , 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening) ; Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). Garcia- Perez’s argument that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence is unpersuasive.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte because Garcia-Perez has not raised a claim of legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited *3 purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

[*] 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).