
    Anthony W. CHIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Anthony W.- Chiu, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, J. Max Weintraub, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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

Anthony W. Chiu, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA properly construed Chiu’s April 26, 2007, filing as a motion to reopen and reconsider. See id. at 793. So construed, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Chiu failed to offer any new or previously unavailable evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed beyond the thirty-day time limit for motions to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review Chiu’s challenges to the agency’s February 28, 2007, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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