Emiliano Mendez-Ochoa v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIANO MENDEZ-OCHOA, a.k.a. Nos. 08-72307
Rufino Bernabe Reyes; 08-73809
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-991-445
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Emiliano Mendez-Ochoa, a native
and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order
denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia, and
*
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).
denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005), we deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa’s motion
to reopen where the Order to Show Cause showed it had been personally served on
Mendez-Ochoa and contained notice of his next scheduled hearing in both Spanish
and English. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice
proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa’s motion to
reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
agency’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Mendez-Ochoa’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72307 & 08-73809