Fredy Antonio Espinoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FREDY ANTONIO ESPINOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73101
Agency No. A094-316-781
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Antonio Espinoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Mohammed v.
FILED
NOV 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73101 2
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss
in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Espinoza’s motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was
material and previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Espinoza’s challenge to the adverse
credibility finding contained in the agency’s prior orders because this petition for
review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --