Case Name: Edna Chiebonam JOHNSON (Okoye), Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 229 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 06-60472
Parties: Edna Chiebonam JOHNSON (Okoye), Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Edna Chiebonam JOHNSON (Okoye), Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60472
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 2, 2007.
Ike Nkem Atah Waobikeze, Waobikeze & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In January 2003, Edna Chiebonam Johnson (Okoye) (hereinafter Johnson), a native and citizen of Nigeria, was ordered removed from the United States to Nigeria. In November 2005, Johnson moved the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen her case in order to allow her to present new evidence. The BIA denied relief, finding: the motion was untimely; and, her case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of its discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen her case.
This court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen "under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard". Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2005). With certain limited exceptions, a "motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal". 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Johnson does not challenge the BIA's conclusion that her motion to reopen was not filed within 90 days of the date of entry of the BIA's decision affirming the immigration judge's decision ordering her removal. Further, she does not present any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing of her untimely motion to reopen. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over her petition. See Osabede v. Gonzales, 216 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam); cf. Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 631 (5th Cir.2005) (court has jurisdiction to review BIA's denial of untimely motion to reopen because petitioner's motion was based on changed country circumstances).
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.