Mauricio Guolart Rosa v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

07-73433Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 26, 2010

Full text

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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICIO GUOLART ROSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73433
Agency No. A093-303-008
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Goulart Rosa, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-73433 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS,
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo a claim of constitutional
violation in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Rosa’s motion to reconsider
because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s April 26,
2007, 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). Rosa’s due process claim therefore fails. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process
violation).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 26, 2007, order dismissing
Rosa’s underlying appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.