Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0761-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glenda Esmeralda HERNANDEZ-BURUCA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71162.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Glenda Esmeralda Hernandez-Buruca, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we dismiss Hernandez-Buruca’s petition for review.

Hernandez-Buruca’s petition for review is untimely because she filed it on April 25, 2011, more than 30 days after the BIA’s decision on March 23, 2011. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (the 30-day filing period for a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional); Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir.2007) (order) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted) (“A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule.”). We reject Hernandez-Buruca’s contentions that the petition was timely pursuant to the “constructive receipt” rule or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(3)(A). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

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