Marco Uneputty v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO STEFAN UNEPUTTY; DEBBY No. 09-74057
ENGELINE,
Agency Nos. A096-356-258
Petitioners, A096-356-259
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Marco Stefan Uneputty and Debby Engeline, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their 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,
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where the motion was untimely and petitioners failed to identify any
error of fact or law in the BIA’s previous decision affirming an immigration
judge’s removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to grant petitioners’
motion to reconsider sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-74057