
    Fasil TAKLETSADIK, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-1970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 25, 2007.
    Decided: May 9, 2007.
    Jason A. Dzubow, Mensah, Butler & Dzubow, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jessica E. Sherman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Fasil Takletsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying a motion to reconsider its prior order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Takletsadik, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       We lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the Board's order denying the motion to reopen, because Takletsadik failed to file a timely petition for review from that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding filing of reconsideration motion does not toll time period for filing petition for review).
     