Case Name: Leonor HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-13
Citations: 301 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 08-70615
Parties: Leonor HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
Leonor HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70615.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2008.
Filed Nov. 13, 2008.
Leonor Hernandez, pro se.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, 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: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Larar-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reconsider that decision, and the motion must be filed within 30 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Because petitioner's motion to reconsider was filed beyond the 30-day deadline, and petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to support tolling the deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely motion to reconsider. See id.
Accordingly, this petition for review is summarily denied because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.