Case Name: Maria DE LOS ANGELES VILCHES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 299 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 06-74121
Parties: Maria DE LOS ANGELES VILCHES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Maria DE LOS ANGELES VILCHES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Maria De Los Angeles Vilches, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
OIL, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, DOJ — 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 HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria de los Angeles Vilches, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to reconsider as untimely because the motion was filed nearly two months after the BIA's final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of BIA's decision).
To the extent Petitioner seeks review of the BIA's January 30, 2006 order dismissing her appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
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.