Bertha Quintero v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 381 F. App'x 748 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERTHA QUINTERO, No. 08-71750
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-532-852
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 **
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Bertha Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
*
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).
reopen/reconsider her removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
If we construe Quintero’s motion as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion where the new evidence she presented
with the motion did not support prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006).
Even if we construed the motion as a motion to reconsider, the BIA was
within its discretion in denying Quientero’s motion where the motion failed to
identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision affirming the
immigration judge's order denying cancellation of removal. 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).
To the extent Quintero challenges the BIA's February 5, 2008 order, we lack
jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.