Granados Elisea v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 695 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR GRANADOS ELISEA; No. 07-73890
RAFAELA GRANADOS,
Agency Nos. A073-872-934
Petitioners, A095-297-090
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Granados Elisea and Rafaela Granados, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen and to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to
reopen and to reconsider. 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 petitioners’ motion because
it was not supported by sufficient evidentiary material to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Shin v.
Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (alien could not meet the burden of
proof for a motion to reopen, where “[a]lthough petitioner contends she has filed
an I-140 Form...she did not include any documentation to show her application has
been approved”). Nor did the petitioners identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272
F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Their due process contention is not
persuasive.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s June 2007 order affirming the
immigration judge’s decision denying 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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-73890