Case Name: Estuardo Antonio RODRIGUEZ-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 06-72422
Parties: Estuardo Antonio RODRIGUEZ-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
Estuardo Antonio RODRIGUEZ-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Estuardo Antonio Rodriguez-Avila, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Estuardo Antonio Rodriguez-Avila, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied as untimely his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. The regulations provide that motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider, filed on February 22, 2006, more than 30 days after the BIA's March 21, 2005 decision. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's March 21, 2005 order denying Avila's motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.