Maria Bautista Mendoza v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ROSARIO BAUTISTA No. 11-70267
MENDOZA,
Agency No. A072-128-923
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 20, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Maria Rosario Bautista-Mendoza, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous dismissal of her
appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA’s determination
of purely legal questions is reviewed de novo. Id. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.1
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s dismissal of Bautista-Mendoza’s
appeal from the IJ’s decision because she did not petition for review of that
decision within the 90-day limit. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995);
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996).
In addition, Bautista-Mendoza failed to challenge the BIA’s denial of her
motion to reconsider and therefore waived that claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94
F.3d at 1259-60.
Bautista-Mendoza’s remaining claims lack merit.
PETITION DENIED.
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we
do not recount the facts here.
2