Case Name: Hiskia BILLY and Alvin Lende Billy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-08
Citations: 446 F. App'x 853
Docket Number: No. 10-70245
Parties: Hiskia BILLY and Alvin Lende Billy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 853–854

Head Matter:
Hiskia BILLY and Alvin Lende Billy, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. 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
Hiskia and Alvin Lende Billy, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' July 6, 2009, motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed over three years after the BIA's February 15, 2006, final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
In light of our disposition, we need not consider petitioners' contention that the BIA's original analysis regarding whether they were members of a disfavored group was erroneous under Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010).
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.