Ramirez-Ramirez

ORDER *

Ramirez-Ramirez’s petition for review was filed 31 days after the date of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1) (“[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Dissenting.

We have recognized that “where there has been official misleading as to the time within which to file a notice of appeal, the late notice may be deemed to have been constructively filed within the jurisdictional time limits.” Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.1980) (collecting cases).

The BIA’s Order of Removal is date-stamped September 16, 2002, ostensibly making the Petition for Review due on October 16, 2002 — “30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1). But the transmittal notice/cover letter from BIA Clerk’s office, on which Petitioner’s counsel relied to determine the date the Petition was due, states that the “D ate of this notice” is September 17, 2002. 1 Similarly, the Exec *258 utive Office of Immigration Review’s automated phone tree system (1-800-898-7180), which Petitioner’s counsel used to verify the status of Petitioner’s case, told counsel that the BIA’s Order was dated September 17, 2002.

The majority ignores Hemandez-Rivera and faults Petitioner for filing his Petition for Review one day late. I dissent because Petitioner was “officially] misle[d]” by the Attorney General as to the date of…