
    Luis Arturo CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71144.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 27, 2004.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Arturo Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

We do not consider Carranza’s arguments concerning the BIA’s September 17, 2002 decision because Carranza did not file a timely petition for review of that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent Carranza challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, the challenge fails because the BIA’s stated reasons were not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” See Carancho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
     