Case Name: Jose AGUILAR-LOPEZ, 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: 247 F. App'x 860
Docket Number: No. 05-72370
Parties: Jose AGUILAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 247
Pages: 860–860

Head Matter:
Jose AGUILAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72370.
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, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., 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
Jose Aguilar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen as untimely. To the extent that we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar-Lopez's motion to reconsider, because the motion did not identify an error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order denying Aguilar-Lopez's motion to reopen as untimely and concluding he was not entitled to equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order of deportation, issued in 1991, as this petition for review is untimely as to that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1258 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.