Ronald J. Mazariegos-Garcia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RONALD J. MAZARIEGOS-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71349
Agency No. A075-719-506
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ronald J. Mazariegos-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his motion to reconsider the agency’s underlying order denying his motion
to reopen based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71349 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
of a motion to reconsider. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.
2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mazariegos-Garcia’s
motion to reconsider on the ground that he did not demonstrate any legal or factual
error in the agency’s refusal to reopen his case, see Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In filing a motion to reconsider, the petitioner
must ‘specify[] the errors of fact or law in the prior B[IA] decision . . . .” (citation
omitted)), where his motion to reopen had failed to comply with the procedural
requirements for filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, see
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[U]nder ordinary
circumstances the BIA does not abuse its discretion when it denies a motion to . . .
reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel where petitioner fails to
meet the [procedural] requirements.”). In light of this disposition, we need not
address the agency’s alternative grounds for denying the underlying motion to
reopen. See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006)
(declining to reach nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mazariegos-Garcia’s contentions that the
immigration judge applied incorrect legal standards in adjudicating his application

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71349 3
for cancellation of removal and failed to consider his eligibility for asylum,
because this petition for review is untimely as to Mazariegos-Garcia’s underlying
removal order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Mazariegos-Garcia’s contention that the
BIA did not consider the merits of his arguments during his 2010 appeal, because
Mazariegos-Garcia failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --