
    Estela MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 28, 2004.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Christopher C. Fuller, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Attorney General John Ashcroft is the proper respondent.
    
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Estella Medrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reconsider a prior order denying her motion to reopen. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 138 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion, Caruncho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995), and we dismiss in part, and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Medrano’s challenges to the BIA’s September 23, 2002, order because she did not timely appeal that decision to this Court. See Narayan v. INS, 105 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir. 1997) (order) (all petitions for review must be filed within 30 days of the final BIA decision); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (statutory time limit is both mandatory and jurisdictional).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Medrano’s motion for reconsideration because the motion raised arguments which the BIA previously addressed and rejected. See Caruncho, 68 F.3d at 361-62 (denying petition for review where BIA stated reasons and considered relevant equities before denying relief).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part, 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     