Case Name: Yazmine Ivette VILLASENOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 06-72314
Parties: Yazmine Ivette VILLASENOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Yazmine Ivette VILLASENOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Yazmine Ivette Villasenor, Ontario, CA, pro se.
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, Colette J. Winston, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yazmine Ivette Villasenor petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen an in absentia removal order. She contends that the Board erred in dis missing her appeal as one day late under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) and (c). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Villasenor's notice of appeal was filed by her attorney 31 days after the mailing of the immigration judge's decision and therefore was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) and (c).
She contends that the Board should have considered her appeal on its merits because the immigration judge erred in denying her motion to reopen, and the untimeliness of the appeal did not cause any prejudice. These arguments do not rise to the level of rare circumstances justifying an exception to the deadline for appeal. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that equitable defenses do not apply to jurisdictional deadline).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.