eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-07

Herodita Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERODITA LOPEZ;                                     No.      14-72701
JORGE ALBERTO RIVERA LOPEZ,
Agency Nos.         A094-453-700
Petitioners,                                          A200-817-395
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before:        CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Herodita Lopez and Jorge Alberto Rivera Lopez, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider,
Cano-Merida v. INS,
    311 F.3d 960
    , 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding Lopez’s
criminal convictions because they did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior order. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (b)(1); see also Najmabadi v. Holder,
    597 F.3d 983
    , 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of
discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2                                  14-72701