Alvaro Eduardo Chavez Diaz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVARO EDUARDO CHAVEZ DIAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74039
Agency No. A070-189-619
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alvaro Eduardo Chavez Diaz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
FILED
DEC 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d
669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez Diaz’s motion to
reconsider where Chavez Diaz did not identify any error of law or fact in the IJ’s
prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1),
(c)(2)-(3). Specifically, Diaz Chavez did not challenge the IJ’s determination that
his motion to reopen was untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), and he failed
to demonstrate changed circumstances in El Salvador to satisfy the requirements
of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.
2004) (The relevant question is whether the new information was unavailable or
undiscoverable at the previous asylum hearing).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chavez Diaz’s unexhausted contention
regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of his former attorney. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not
12-74039 2

-- 2 of 3 --

reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-74039 3

-- 3 of 3 --