
    Maria Rosario Bautista MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70267.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 20, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2013.
    Rodel E. Rodis, Law Offices of Rodel E. Rodis, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Maria Rosario Bautista-Mendoza, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Cano-Menda v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA’s determination of purely legal questions is reviewed de novo. Id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s dismissal of Bautista-Mendoza’s appeal from the IJ’s decision because she did not petition for review of that decision within the 90-day limit. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

In addition, Bautista-Mendoza failed to challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider and therefore waived that claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.

Bautista-Mendoza’s remaining claims lack merit.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we do not recount the facts here.
     