NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 15 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENIGNO SANDOVAL-MADRIGAL,                      No.    13-74107
AKA Jesus Osequerra,
                                                Agency No. A079-630-352
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      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.


      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 

, 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, 

, 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.




                                         2                                   13-74107