Case Name: Fang CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 542 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 11-72987
Parties: Fang CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
Fang CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72987.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
Fang Cheng, Baldwin Park, CA, pro se.
Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Fang Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng's motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's prior order denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in construing the motion as a second motion to reopen and denying it as time- and number-barred where Cheng failed to establish that she qualified for any exception to the time and number limitations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3).
To the extent Cheng challenges the BIA's March 31, 2011 order denying her motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed within 30 days of the order).
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.