Case Name: Rosa Elia LOPEZ GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-01
Citations: 417 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 08-74417
Parties: Rosa Elia LOPEZ GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
Rosa Elia LOPEZ GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74417.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 1, 2011.
Rosa Elia Lopez Gomez, Panorama City, CA, pro se.
Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosa Elia Lopez Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Lopez Gomez's motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and she has not demonstrated that she qualifies for any exception to the 90-day time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Lopez Gomez's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.