Monica Arteaga 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MONICA ARTEAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74152
Agency No. A096-349-974
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Monica Arteaga, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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
FILED
JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74152 2
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Arteaga’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 28, 2008, order dismissing
Arteaga’s appeal because this petition is not timely as to that order. See Singh v.
INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --