Case Name: Heriberto GUARDADO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 245 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 05-70169
Parties: Heriberto GUARDADO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 245
Pages: 656–658

Head Matter:
Heriberto GUARDADO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70169.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
K. Sean Singh, Esq., K. Sean Singh and Associates, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Heriberto Guardado-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We review questions of law de novo, id., and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in denying Guardado-Aguilar's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA issued the final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days after the date of the final administrative decision). Moreover, Guardado-Aguilar did not submit any evidence that his conviction was dismissed. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.