Case Name: Jose Luis GUERRA-SEGURA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 231 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 06-71340
Parties: Jose Luis GUERRA-SEGURA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
Jose Luis GUERRA-SEGURA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71340.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Jose Luis Guerra-Segura, Pomona, 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., Jessica E. Sherman, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Guerra-Segura seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
A petition for review must be filed "not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The BIA's final order of removal was issued on January 30, 2006, and Guerra-Segura filed his petition for review with this court over 40 days later, on March 15, 2006. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003) (thirty day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.