MARIO ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ CURIEL and NORMA SILVA GONZALEZ 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ
CURIEL and NORMA SILVA
GONZALEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72232
Agency Nos. A075-698-698
Agency Nos. A075-698-699
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alberto Rodriguez Curiel and Norma Silva Gonzalez, husband and
wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72232 2
judge’s denial of their motion to reconsider, and denying their motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
prior order. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(2);1205.10(a)(3)(i)-(ii), 1245.10(a)(4).
Petitioners failed to challenge the BIA’s determination that their motion to
reopen was time- and number-barred, and therefore waived review of that issue.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasoning is not
supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen the proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,
633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --