* On February 4, 2005, Alberto R. Gonzales became the United States

Attorney General. In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Gonzales is substituted fo r John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 31, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EMMANUEL LAYLO BALANE and PRYMROSE MORALES BALANE,

Petitioners,

v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, * Attorney General, Respondent. No. 04-9596 (BIA Nos. A78-354-380 & A78-354-381) (Board of Immigration Appeals)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before EBEL , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore subm itted without1 Petitioners’ argument on appeal goes to the merits of their original

cancellation of removal. However, we will not cons ider that argument because our jurisdiction is limited to review of the Board’ s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395, 405-06 (1995). -2- oral argument. Petitioners are aliens from the Philippines. Afterbeing informed of the institution of removal proceedings against them, th ey applied for a cancellation of removal. On March 13, 2003, the immigration law ju dge denied their application. Petitioners appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). On April 27, 2004, the Board summarily affirmed the immigration law judge’s decision. Thereafter, on August 5, 2004, Petitione rs filed a motion with the Board to reconsider its summary affirmance. The Bo ard denied Petitioners’ motion because it was untimely. Petitioners now ap peal the Board’s denial of that motion. 1 We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsi der for an abuse of discretion. See Belay-Gebru v. INS , 327 F.3d 998, 1000 n.5 (10th Cir. 2003). The Board “abuses its discretion when its decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory s tatements.” Infanzon v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal qu otation marks and citation omitted).2 The Board acknowledged its error “in forwarding its July 12, 2004

rejection notice to the wrong address.” A.R. at 3. However, this is not relevant to our holding because, even if we were to recogniz e Petitioners’ first filing as valid, it was nonetheless untimely when it was senton July 7, 2004. -3- There is nothing in this case indicating that the B oard abused its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion to reconsider. In its order, the Board explained, “the motion to reconsider was filed out of time.” A.R. at 3. The order outlined the time schedule that Petitioners had forfiling such a motion. Petitioners had thirty days to file a motion for re consideration after the Board’s order was entered on April 27, 2004. Petitioners d id not file their motion until August 5, 2004. 2 Based on our review of the relevant law and facts s urrounding this issue, we hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the Board’s decision is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge