Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ilona MANUKIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-74124.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Ilona Manukian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ilona Manukian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion to reopen. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Manukian challenges the BIA’s December 31, 2002, decision, we lack jurisdiction because she did not file a petition for review within thirty days of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir .2003).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied as untimely Manukian’s motion to reconsider because Manukian filed her motion approximately five months after the BIA issued its decision denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (A motion to reconsider a final decision by the BIA must be filed no later than thirty days after that decision.).

Manukian’s due process challenge is without merit as the record indicates she failed to notify the agency of her whereabouts after relocating numerous times. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(l)(F)(ii).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.