
    Lian Bie LIM; Ryandi Siswojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Kadarusman Law Office, Murray, UT, Bill Kadarusman, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lian Bie Lim and her husband Ryandi Siswojo, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Lim’s motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lim’s motion reconsider as untimely because it was filed almost eighteen months after the BIA’s prior order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days after the agency’s prior decision). Lim’s contention that she did not receive proper mailing of the BIA’s briefing schedule is unavailing because Lim did not utilize the proper change of address forms, and the certified mail receipts alone do not indicate that a change of address was mailed to the BIA. See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (notification to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) did not constitute notification of an address change to the BIA because BIA is a quasi-judicial body separate and independent of the INS).

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