Sergio Maradiaga v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 549 F. App'x 671 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO EDILBERTO MARADIAGA, No. 12-70785
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-782-018
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Edilberto Maradiaga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions
to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
motions to reconsider and reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maradiaga’s motion to
reconsider where the motion did not establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA applied the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maradiaga’s motion to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal where
Maradiaga failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See
Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (A prima facie
case is established “where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the
statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.”) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Maradiaga’s contentions related to the
BIA’s dismissal of his appeal on November 29, 2011, because this petition for
review is untimely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. Mukasey,
533 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70785