Jaspreet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA properly concluded that Kaur’s motion to reopen, filed nearly two years after the BIA issued its final order, was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its
recognizing that motions to reopen to adjust status must be filed no later than ninety days after the bia issues its final decision holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that the court does not have jurisdiction over an action contesting the denial of a protest filed more than ninety days after notice of liquidation holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment holding that if a complaint is filed more than 60 days after a final decision a dissatisfied claimant may petition the secretary for relief however the secretarys decision whether to reopen those claims is discretionary and not subject to review