Case Name: Ravi Vikash CHAND, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 168 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 04-75432
Parties: Ravi Vikash CHAND, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Ravi Vikash CHAND, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75432.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
Ravi Vikash Chand, Florence, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Susan A. Sinclair, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ravi Vikash Chand, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying Chand's motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision of June 20, 2003, affirming the immigration judge's decision of February 11, 2003, because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost one year after the 90 day time limit had expired. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (requiring a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.