Case Name: Svitlana BILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 870
Docket Number: No. 07-73770
Parties: Svitlana BILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
Svitlana BILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73770.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
Areg Kazaryan, Esquire, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Leah V. Durant, Esquire, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Esquire, Assistant Director, T. Bo Stanton, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Svitlana Bila, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bila's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed almost nine months after the final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of deportation), and Bila failed to establish that any of the regulatory exceptions apply, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.