Cesar Augusto Marroquin- Morales; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CESAR AUGUSTO MARROQUIN-
MORALES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74349
Agency Nos. A099-405-204
A099-405-205
A099-405-206
A099-405-207
A099-405-208
A099-405-209
A099-405-210
A099-405-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Augusto Marroquin-Morales and family, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74349 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and review
de novo due process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior order. 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). Nor did the BIA violate due process in
denying as untimely petitioners’ late appeal brief. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007
at 1013-14.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 19, 2006 order dismissing
petitioners’ appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum,
withholding, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because the instant
petitioner for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
To the extent petitioners allege ineffective assistance of counsel, we lack
jurisdiction to review that contention because petitioners failed to raise it before the

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74349 3
BIA and therefore failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --