Case Name: Andres SOSA-TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 231 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 06-72988
Parties: Andres SOSA-TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
Andres SOSA-TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72988.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Andres Sosa-Trujillo, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Andres Sosa-Trujillo petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sosa-Trujillo's motion to reopen as untimely because Sosa-Trujillo filed the motion more than three years after the BIA's September 26, 2002, final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (stating that a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of entry of a final administrative order of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.