22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c2,MEMORANDUM Jairo Alexander Ramirez-Carmendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Carmendez’s motion to reconsider where he did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1), (c)(2)-(3). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 24, 2007, underlying order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f4,

MEMORANDUM

Jairo Alexander Ramirez-Carmendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Carmendez’s motion to reconsider where he did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1), (c)(2)-(3).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 24, 2007, underlying order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision 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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.