Barrera Zapeta v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 657 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLGA ESTELA BARRERA ZAPETA, No. 07-72084
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-576-711
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Olga Estela Barrera Zapeta, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
KS/Research
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider,
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrera Zapeta’s motion as a
motion to reconsider. The motion failed to specify an error of fact or law with
respect to the BIA’s prior determination that her February 1, 2006, motion to
reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely the motion
as a motion to reopen where it was filed 3 years after the BIA’s order dismissing
the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrera Zapeta’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
KS/Research 2 07-72084