Salvador Alcala-Urvina, a.k.a. Salvador Urvina v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR ALCALA-URVINA, a.k.a.
Salvador Urvina,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74206
Agency No. A092-786-651
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Alcala-Urvina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse
of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended
FILED
JAN 23 2014
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 2 --

by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alcala-Urvina’s motion to
reconsider, where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior decision dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to
reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); see also Ma v.
Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s June 18, 2012,
order dismissing Alcala-Urvina’s appeal 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review Alcala-Urvina’s claim that the immigration
judge abused her discretion in denying his request for a fourth continuance,
because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA in his motion to reconsider and
thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-74206 2

-- 2 of 2 --