Corina Reyes-Villegas v. Loretta E. Lynch , 609 F. App'x 451 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORINA REYES-VILLEGAS, No. 11-73860
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-952-403
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Corina Reyes-Villegas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. This
petition for review is timely because the court’s records indicate the court received
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the express mail containing the petition for review on December 15, 2011. See
Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (when evidence “exists to
prove that the package arrived at that address on a certain day,” the petition is
treated “as received on that day”). 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).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Villegas’s motion for
reconsideration, because it failed to identify errors of facts or law in the BIA’s
prior decision denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review Reyes-Villegas’s challenges to the
proceedings before the immigration judge, or the BIA’s denial on the merits,
because this petition for review is untimely as to those proceedings. See
Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (requiring
any petition for review to be “filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final
order of removal”) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
2 11-73860
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Reyes-Villegas’s request for
prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73860