Case Name: Eustolia DE ANDA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 223 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 05-70009
Parties: Eustolia DE ANDA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Eustolia DE ANDA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Robert G. Berke, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, Eustolia De Anda Garcia, Pacoima, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Roger E. West, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eustolia De Anda Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying De Anda Garcia's motion to reconsider as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) ("A motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision") (emphasis added).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.