Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0801-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorenia FALKES-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70222.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 20, 2007.
    Lorenia Falkes-Rivera, Paramount, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Bryan S. Beier, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorenia Falkes-Rivera seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Falkes-Rivera’s motion to reopen because she failed to demonstrate the evidence she submitted was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).

To the extent Falkes-Rivera’s motion also sought reconsideration, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within thirty days of final order of removal).

We grant Falkes-Rivera’s motion to file a late reply brief. The Clerk shall file the brief received on October 24, 2006.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Judge O’Scannlain respectfully dissents. He would dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.