Karapetyan v. Holder ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT REPELITA MAMBOU, No. 08-70557
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-321
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Albert Repelita Mambou, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383
*
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).
F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambou’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the
BIA’s October 13, 2007, order dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc)
(purpose of a motion to reconsider is “to demonstrate that the IJ or the BIA erred as
a matter of law or fact.”).
To the extent Mambou challenges the BIA’s October 30, 2007, order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his
withholding of removal application, we lack jurisdiction 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 08-70557