Maria Rosalia Solorizano- Renderos, a/k/a Maria Rosalio Solorzano-Renderos v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ROSALIA SOLORIZANO-
RENDEROS, a/k/a Maria Rosalio
Solorzano-Renderos,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71520
Agency No. A027-196-301
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Rosalia Solorizano-Renderos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-71520 2
her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part, the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Solorizano-Renderos’
motion to reconsider as untimely because she filed the motion more than four years
after the BIA issued its final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s May 17, 2002, order dismissing
Solorizano-Renderos’ direct appeal because this petition for review is not timely as
to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --