Case Name: QIN ZENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 437 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 07-73725
Parties: QIN ZENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 542–542

Head Matter:
QIN ZENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73725.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 8, 2011.
Land Wayland, Esquire, Land Wayland Law Offices, Diamond Bar, CA, for Petitioner.
Justin Robert Markel, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Susan Houser, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qin Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 23, 2007, order denying Zeng's motion to reopen because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
Zeng's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.