Case Name: Gurnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 457
Docket Number: No. 05-76893
Parties: Gurnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 457–458

Head Matter:
Gurnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76893.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John W. Blakeley Fax, John W. Blakeley, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurnam Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See 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 Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it approximately 2 years after the BIA's final order of removal and failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exceptions to the ninety-day time limit, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal).
We do not consider contentions regarding underlying proceedings because the petition for review is not timely as to the BIA's order of December 17, 2002. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.