Case Name: Arlene Venzon MEDINA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-21
Citations: 310 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 06-72090
Parties: Arlene Venzon MEDINA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 105–105

Head Matter:
Arlene Venzon MEDINA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 21, 2009.
Arlene Venzon Medina, Cathedral City, CA, pro se.
Theodore Charles Hirt, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arlene Venzon Medina, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse.its discretion in denying Medina's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's April 3, 2006 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's December 30, 2005 order denying Medina's motion to reopen because she failed to petition the court for timely review of that decision. See 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.