Jenaro Morales Flores v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENARO MORALES FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70397
Agency No. A073-967-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jenaro Morales Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
rescind and reissue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70397 2
for abuse of discretion, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th
Cir. 2007), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Morales Flores’
motion was an untimely motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s April 21,
2004, decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider a decision must
be filed with the BIA within 30 days after the mailing of the decision), or by
concluding that Morales Flores failed to provide the BIA with a reason for
reissuing any of its previous decisions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
To the extent Morales Flores challenges the BIA’s April 21, 2004, decision,
or the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings
conducted in absentia, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to
those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Morales Flores’ due process claims are unavailing.
The temporary stay of removal continues in effect until issuance of the
mandate or further order of the court.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --