
    JING YANG; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70491.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2009.
    Jing Yang, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    Jing Sheng Pan, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    Zhen Yang Pan, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    
      Julie M. Iversen, Oil, Mark Christopher Walters, Esq., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jing Yang, her husband Jing Sheng Pan, and their minor child, natives and citizens of China, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsideration. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed two and a half years after the BIA issued its final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Yang failed to demonstrate eligibility for any of the regulatory exceptions to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed well beyond the 30-day filing deadline for motions to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

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