
    Flor De Maria PENA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2007.
    Flor De Maria Pena-Rodriguez, Los An-geles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, John S. Hogan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Flor de Maria Pena-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider its order dismissing as untimely her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), we grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and remand.

In denying Pena-Rodriguez’s motion to reconsider, the BIA incorrectly stated that it had no authority to extend the filing deadline for Pena-Rodriguez’s appeal. See id. at 613. In light of this error, we cannot be certain that the BIA examined the facts of Pena-Rodriguez’s case to determine whether she established “rare circumstances” sufficient to excuse the late filing. See id. We therefore remand to allow the BIA to exercise its discretion as to whether to accept Pena-Rodriguez’s late-arriving notice of appeal. See id. at 614.

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