Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0951-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Del Carmen REYES-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73359.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    Maria Del Carmen Reyes-Perez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Andrew B. Insenga, Esquire, OIL, Song E. Park, Esquire, DOJ-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: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria del Carmen Reyes-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing as untimely her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order, and denying her motion to accept a late-filed appeal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly dismissed Reyes-Perez’s appeal as untimely because the record reflects that the IJ’s decision issued on December 7, 2005, that the notice of appeal was therefore due on January 6, 2006, and that it was received by the BIA on February 17, 2006. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)-(c); see also Matter of Liadov, 23 I. & N. Dec. 990, 991 (BIA 2006) (an appeal is not deemed filed until it is received by the BIA). Moreover, Reyes-Perez has not pointed to “rare circumstances” under which the BIA may excuse a late filing. See, e.g., Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.2005).

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