Benito Iniguez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO INIGUEZ and ROSA No. 09-71220
SORROZA-CRUZ,
Agency Nos. A099-367-285
Petitioners, A099-367-286
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Benito Iniguez and Rosa Sorroza-Cruz, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen
*
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).
or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s
October 24, 2008, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where petitioners failed to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel, see Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-93 (9th Cir.
2005), and failed to provide any new evidence with the motion, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s October
24, 2008, order because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71220