Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

295 F. App'x 117

Chavez v. Mukasey

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided September 25, 2008

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2008-09-25

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Apolinar v. Mukasey

Decided 2008-09-25

¶1MEMORANDUM …

¶2Luis Manuel Martinez Chavez, Anita Ambriz Sanchez, and Montserrat Martinez Ambriz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider its order dismissing their appeal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

¶3The BIA was within its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision dismissing their appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

¶4To the extent the petitioners seek review of the BIA’s April 27, 2005 order dismissing their appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider their contentions because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir .2003).

¶5PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/295/fappx/117 · .json · Public domain