Margarito Rojas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARITO ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-74576
08-72222
Agency No. A074-812-597
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Margarito Rojas, a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74576 2
applications for adjustment of status, suspension of deportation, and voluntary
departure, and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 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).
We dismiss the petition for review in No. 07-74576, and we deny the petition for
review in No. 08-72222.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denials of Rojas’
applications for relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f); see also Hosseini
v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2006) (adjustment of status); Gomez-
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 2005) (voluntary departure); Kalaw
v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 1997) (suspension of deportation). Rojas’
contentions that the agency erred and violated due process by failing to consider
the positive factors in his case, penalizing him for failing to disclose certain assets
and that he was apprehended in 1997, and failing to cite controlling case law, do
not state colorable claims. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80
(9th Cir. 2009); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas’ motion to reconsider
because the motion failed to point to an error of fact or law in the BIA’s October

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74576 3
23, 2007, order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
No. 07-74576: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
No. 08-72222: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --