
    Miguela SAENZ-KOBEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 12, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 14, 2011.
    John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jane Tracey Schaffner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Saenz-Kobel petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. In 1997, Saenz-Kobel conceded removability for an Arizona drug smuggling conviction and waived appeal. Saenz-Kobel filed his motion to reopen more than ten years after the immigration judge ordered him removed. This was untimely because motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Saenz-Kobel’s removal order became administratively final when he waived appeal in 1997. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39.

Saenz-Kobel argues that Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2007), is an intervening change in the law that renders his previous removal order unlawful. His argument is incorrect. An intervening change of law is not an excuse for filing an untimely motion to reopen. Avila-Sanchez v. Mulcasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2007). Further, Saenz-Kobel’s reliance on Ruiz-Vidal is misplaced, as that case considered the government’s burden of proof in demonstrating that an alien is removable under INA section 237(a)(2)(B)(i). Ruiz-Vidal did not consider a situation where the petitioner conceded removability. In any event, Ruiz-Vidal is not an intervening change in the law. See Matter of Paulus, 11 I. & N. Dec. 274, 1965 WL 12279 (BIA 1965).

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