Court Opinion

ID: 218416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-09 00:01:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:36.061513
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 08 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIN ZENG,                                        No. 07-73725

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A075-755-899

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted May 24, 2011 **

Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Qin Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng’s motion to reconsider

because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior

order denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 23, 2007, order denying

Zeng’s motion to reopen because she failed to timely petition this court for review

of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

      Zeng’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          2                                    07-73725