Case Name: Damian MARTINEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-01
Citations: 223 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 06-70006
Parties: Damian MARTINEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 669–669

Head Matter:
Damian MARTINEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed March 1, 2007.
Christopher J. Stender, Esq., Stender & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
Damian Martinez-Reyes, 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Martinez-Reyes' motion as untimely because it was filed over four months after the BIA entered its final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative removal order).
In light of this holding, we do not reach Martinez-Reyes' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.