Case Name: Suneel DEO SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-31
Citations: 320 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 06-75727
Parties: Suneel DEO SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 746–746

Head Matter:
Suneel DEO SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75727.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009 .
Filed March 31, 2009.
Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Sekhon & Sekhon, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Suneel Deo Sharma, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay E. Williams, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Of-fiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lead petitioner Suneel Deo Sharma, and his family, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners' motion as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA's May 31, 2006 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners' remaining contentions because they failed to exhaust them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is generally mandatory and jurisdictional). Moreover, this petition is timely only with respect to the BIA's December 8, 2006 order and does not extend to the BIA's prior decisions. 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.