Case Name: GUI FEN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-27
Citations: 248 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 06-71107
Parties: GUI FEN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 248
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
GUI FEN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71107.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, James Brandon Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gui Fen Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision adopting and affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Zhang's petition for review, however, is timely only as to the Board's subsequent decision denying reconsideration and reopening. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). She does not challenge the denial of reconsideration and reopening in her opening brief. We therefore dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.