Serafín Tinoco-Garibay, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tinoco-Garibay’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and he failed to present evidence that he exercised diligence in discovering his prior attorney’s errors, see id. at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud, or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tinoco-Garibay’s contentions regarding the BIA’s March 23, 2004 order, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.