Glenda Esmeralda Hernandez- Buruca 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENDA ESMERALDA HERNANDEZ-
BURUCA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71162
Agency No. A095-210-902
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Glenda Esmeralda Hernandez-Buruca, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se 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
and we dismiss Hernandez-Buruca’s petition for review.
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71162 2
Hernandez-Buruca’s petition for review is untimely because she filed it on
April 25, 2011, more than 30 days after the BIA’s decision on March 23, 2011.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (the 30-day
filing period for a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional); Magtanong
v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (order) (per curiam) (internal
citation omitted) (“A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or
waived, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a
rule.”). We reject Hernandez-Buruca’s contentions that the petition was timely
pursuant to the “constructive receipt” rule or Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 26(a)(3)(A). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --