Case Name: Miguel Angel QUIJOSA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-15
Citations: 695 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 15-72816; Agency No. A205-065-550
Parties: Miguel Angel QUIJOSA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel QUIJOSA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-72816
Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ]
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 15, 2017
Miguel Angel Quijosa, Pro Se
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, 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
Miguel Angel Quijosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as untimely where Quijosa's filed the motion over seven months after the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (setting a 30 day deadline for motions to reconsider).
' We do not consider Quijosa's contentions relating to the agency's underlying denial of cancellation of removal. We previously addressed the agency's denial of relief in Quijosa v. Holder, No. 13-73669 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014) (Order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.