Case Name: Enrique LAMBARRI-YANEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-13
Citations: 131 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: Agency No. A29-559-148; Agency No. A29-559-148
Parties: Enrique LAMBARRI-YANEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Enrique LAMBARRI-YANEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74416.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 13, 2005.
Murray D. Hilts, Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Saul E. Greenstein, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Enrique Lambarri-Yanez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen and its decision denying his motion to reconsider. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the BIA's denial for a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition.
The BIA improperly denied the Petitioner's motion to reopen his deportation proceedings because his BIA appeal was filed before October 1, 1996, his case was pending before the BIA during the qualifying period, and his application for suspension of deportation was denied on the basis of the stop time rule. See Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 243 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1032 (N.D.Cal.2002) (order).
Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the Petitioner's motion to reconsider because he did not file a petition for review within 30 days of that decision. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).
All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and GRANTED in part; REMANDED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.