
    Francisco QUEZADA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Francisco Quezada-Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent. Francisco Quezada-Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-71750, 05-70884, 05-72846.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 20, 2006.
    
    Filed Oct. 30, 2006.
    Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Martin Roy Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, James E. Grimes, Esq., Margaret Perry, Esq., Mark C. Walters, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Quezada-Ramirez filed petitions for judicial review of three Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions. We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petitions.

We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petition for review of BIA’s dismissal of his appeal because he presented no arguments on the matter in his briefs to this court. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). In his second petition, Quezada-Ramirez challenges BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. With certain exceptions not relevant here, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final decision sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Quezada-Ramirez filed his motion nearly five months after the deadline. BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining the expungement of Quezada-Ramirez’s conviction was not a truly exceptional circumstance warranting reopening. Finally, Quezada-Ramirez claims BIA erred in denying his motion to reconsider. Because Quezada-Ramirez failed to point to any “errors of law or fact” in BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, BIA did not err in denying Quezada-Ramirez’s motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C).

DENIED. 
      
       This 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.
     