Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alphonsine NGONGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-71996, 06-73348.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 23, 2009.
    Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions, Alphon-sine Ngongo, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ngongo’s motion to reopen as untimely because Ngongo filed the motion nearly three years after the BIA’s January 21, 2003 final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ngongo does not contend that any exceptions to the time limit are available to her.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ngongo’s motion to reconsider. The motion failed to specify an error of fact or law with respect to the BIA’s dis-positive determination that Ngongo’s motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

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