Case Name: Yolanda Santos ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 361 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 06-70993
Parties: Yolanda Santos ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Yolanda Santos ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70993.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Yolanda Santos Ortiz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yolanda Santos Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reconsider its order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos Ortiz's motion for reconsideration as untimely, when it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit for motions to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). We lack jurisdiction to consider Santos Ortiz's contention that she would have filed a timely motion to reopen but for her non-attorney's ineffective assistance, because she did not exhaust this claim before the Board. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.