ON MOTION

ORDER

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moves to waive Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss this petition for review as untimely. Michelle Barbara Bush also submits a response to this court’s May 20, 2010 order directing her to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed and requests a hearing.

In March of 2010, Bush filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging fraud related to a 1996 Merit Systems Protection Board decision. The district court treated the complaint as seeking review of the Board decision and transferred the complaint to this court. In 1996, the statute governing our review of a petition for review of a Board decision required that the petition be received within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final *323 order or decision of the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) (1996). *

The filing period provided by § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 1984); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived).

Because Bush is attempting to seek review of a 1996 Board decision more than 13 years after it issued, we lack jurisdiction over her petition. Oja v. Dep’t of Army, 405 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (dismissing as untimely a petition that was transferred from district court, when filing date at district court was beyond time to seek review of Board decision by this court). We must therefore grant the FTC’s motion and dismiss this petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The FTC’s motions are granted. The petition is dismissed.

(2) Bush’s motion for a hearing is denied.

(3) The stay is lifted.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.