Pimental-Aguirre

MEMORANDUM **

We have jurisdiction under former 8 U.S.C. § llOSaía), 1 and we deny the petition.

Petitioner failed to file her motion to reopen by September 30, 1996, 2 and she does not contend that she falls within any of the exceptions to this deadline specified in 8 C.F.R. § 3.23 (b)(4). As a result, it was proper for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to dismiss her appeal on the *784 ground that her motion to reopen was untimely.

We reject petitioner’s argument that the filing deadlines in § 3.28(b)(1) were not intended to apply here because she is only attempting to remove the “docket control” placed on her old case as a result of the 1989 deportation order. Nothing in § 3.23 provides an exception for such a situation, nor does petitioner provide any authority to support such an argument. In any event, we must defer to the BIA’s conclusion that § 3.23(b)(1) does apply in petitioner’s situation because that conclusion is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary” to the plain and sensible meaning of the regulation.

Likewise, we reject petitioner’s argument that in order for the INS to process her new application, she must terminate her old case, and thus it…