Aurelio Rivera Reyes 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AURELIO RIVERA REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70551
Agency No. A096-349-786
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Aurelio Rivera Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-70551 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera Reyes’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s November 14, 2006, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera Reyes’ motion to
reopen because Rivera Reyes’ statements in his motion were not supported by an
affidavit or other evidentiary material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Patel v. INS,
741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]n the context of a motion to reopen, the
BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.”).
We do not consider the documents attached to Rivera Reyes’ opening brief
as they are not a part of the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)
(“the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on
which the order of removal is based”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --