Baltazar Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALTAZAR GONZALEZ, No. 10-70780
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-945-580
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted March 8, 2010
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Baltazar Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of petitioner’s motion to reconsider the underlying decision which granted
Gonzalez’s application for voluntary departure.
*
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).
Gonzalez alleges that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reconsider
because his attorney did not become aware of preexisting case law- which would
have made petitioner eligible for cancellation of removal relief - until after the
initial IJ decision.
Gonzalez did not seek cancellation relief at his hearing before the IJ, and the
IJ granted petitioner voluntary departure which was the only form of relief
requested by Gonzalez. Because Gonzalez’s motion lacked any allegations of error
in the initial decision, Gonzalez’s motion to reconsider did not raise proper
grounds for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23. The BIA did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Gonzalez’s motion to reconsider because the motion was
solely based on a new legal argument, and a new form of relief, that could have
been raised in the initial IJ hearing. See Doissant v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1167,
1170-71 (9th Cir. 2008); Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 792 n.8 (9th Cir.
2005) (“a motion to reconsider does not present new law or facts, but rather
challenges determinations of law and fact made by the BIA”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70780