Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0376-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alma Rosa PERALTA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73980.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2008.
    Alma Rosa Peralta, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Pad-dack, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alma Rosa Peralta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen to reapply for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Peralta’s successive motion to reopen because the motion was numerically barred and failed to meet any of the exceptions to the numerical limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

To the extent Peralta challenges the BIA’s July 15, 2004 order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.