Jesus Valdez-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS MARIA VALDEZ-LOPEZ, No. 14-73976
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-410-024
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Maria Valdez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
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. Mohammed v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Valdez-Lopez’s motion to
reconsider as untimely because the motion was filed more than 30 days after the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be
filed within 30 days of BIA’s decision).
To the extent Valdez-Lopez seeks review of the BIA’s December 28, 2012,
order dismissing her appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Valdez-Lopez’s unexhausted contention
that ineffective assistance of a previously unnamed attorney or notario caused her
motion to reconsider’s untimeliness. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1070, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). Valdez-Lopez has waived
her contention regarding the proper place to file her motion. See Bazuaye v. INS,
79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief
are waived.”).
2 14-73976
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over claims regarding prosecutorial discretion,
see Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order), and do not
consider evidence outside the administrative record, see Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d
365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73976