Shankardas Patel-Natvarlal, aka Natvarlal S. Patel 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
CG/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANKARDAS PATEL-NATVARLAL,
aka Natvarlal S. Patel,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73837
Agency No. A070-122-576
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Shankardas Patel-Natvarlal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

CG/Research 08-73837 2
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reconsider, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.
2005), and review de novo due process challenges, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967,
971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
The agency was within its discretion in denying Patel-Natvarlal’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2);
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
To the extent Patel-Natvarlal contends that the delay in filing the Order to
Show Cause violated due process, the contention fails for lack of prejudice because
the record does not indicate that his address changed during the period of delay or
that he attempted to update the government regarding an address change. See
Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --