
    Jenaro Morales FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    Jenaro Morales Flores, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jenaro Morales Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to rescind and reissue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Morales Flores’ motion was an untimely motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s April 21, 2004, decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the BIA within 30 days after the mailing of the decision), or by concluding that Morales Flores failed to provide the BIA with a reason for reissuing any of its previous decisions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

To the extent Morales Flores challenges the BIA’s April 21, 2004, decision, or the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Morales Flores’ due process claims are unavailing.

The temporary stay of removal continues in effect until issuance of the mandate or further order of the court.

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