YONI FEDERICO GRAMAJO MONTERROSO and RUTH A. RODRIGUEZ 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YONI FEDERICO GRAMAJO
MONTERROSO and RUTH A.
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70443
Agency Nos. A070-857-782
A099-054-660
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Yoni Federico Gramajo Monterroso and Ruth A. Rodriguez, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s earlier
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70443 2
decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo due process challenges.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the
BIA’s October 7, 2010, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Petitioners’
contention that the denial of their motion to reconsider violated due process
therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and substantial prejudice for a due process violation).
To the extent that petitioners challenge the BIA’s underlying order
dismissing their appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to
that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed within 30
days of the final order of removal); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --