Case Name: Cristobal BARRAZA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-27
Citations: 229 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 05-74751
Parties: Cristobal BARRAZA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Cristobal BARRAZA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74751.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 27, 2007.
Francisco J. Barba, Esq., San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., Jennifer Paisner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cristobal Barraza-Gareia seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it properly construed his first motion as a motion to reopen and in denying Barraza-Garcia's second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (permitting one motion to reopen before BIA).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 22, 2005 order denying BarrazaGarcia's first motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.