Perez Rocha v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 710 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA PEREZ ROCHA, No. 07-70550
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-443-749
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Perez Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research
reconsider its decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Nearly four months after the BIA issued its final decision, on June 29, 2006,
Rocha filed a motion to reconsider, where she asserted an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. The BIA denied the motion because it was untimely, because
Rocha failed to establish that equitable tolling applied, and because Rocha failed to
show that she complied with Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) or
that she was prejudiced by her former attorney’s actions. Rocha fails to challenge
any of these findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rocha’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
May 26, 2004 order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying her application for cancellation of removal, because this petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
RA/Research 2 07-70550