
    Mario Antonio Quan VILLATORO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Mario Antonio Quan Villatoro, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
    
      CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Antonio Quan Villatoro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Quan-Villatoro’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See id. (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”)

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s November 22, 2005, order denying Quan Villatoro’s previous motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition this court to review that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part AND DISMISSED in part. 
      
       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.
     