Alfonso Lua-Nunez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFONSO LUA-NUNEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 04-71578
04-72959
Agency No. A034-223-680
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfonso Lua-Nunez, a native and
citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order
and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

04-71578 2
We review de novo questions of law, Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d
1122, 1129 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny
the petitions for review.
Lua-Nunez’s due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing because he
pleaded guilty after the enactment and effective date of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Saravia-Paguada, 488
F.3d at 1132-33 (the past relevant conduct for the retroactivity analysis is the
alien’s decision whether to enter a guilty plea or to proceed to trial, and not the
commission of the underlying crime).
We reject Lua-Nunez’s contentions regarding alleged violations of
international law. See generally Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-35
(2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lua Nunez’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the
BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --