Vicente Lima-Camarillo v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE LIMA-CAMARILLO, No. 11-72966
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-304-360
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Lima-Camarillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
*
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).
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lima-Camarillo’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s order dismissing as untimely Lima-Camarillo’s appeal of the immigration
judge’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b)(1), 1003.38(b), (c); Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lima-Camarillo’s contention that his case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
Lima-Camarillo’s remaining contentions are unavailing, or not properly
before us. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72966