
    Benigno SANDOVAL-MADRIGAL, AKA Jesus Osequerra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74107
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Alexander H. Lubar'sky, Esquire, Attorney, Community Legal Centers, San Ma-teo, CA, for Petitioner
    Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Benigno Sandoval-Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal, which was treated as a motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval-Madrigal’s motion to reconsider the agency’s denial of adjustment of status as untimely, where it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s 2011 order became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of entry of a final order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i) (an order of removal becomes final when the BIA affirms the order); Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (a BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     