Jingesh Mehta 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGESH MEHTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73232
Agency No. A072-698-046
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jingesh Mehta (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a May 26,
2006, order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his
motion to reconsider the BIA’s March 1, 2006 denial of his motion to reopen on
FILED
OCT 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The parties are familiar with the facts and we repeat them here only as1
necessary to explain our decision.
2
the basis that there were no grounds for reconsideration. This court has1
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, as amended by the REAL ID Act, and we
deny the petition.
The time limit for filing a petition for review is “mandatory and
jurisdictional” and “not subject to equitable tolling.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,
405 (1995); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996).
The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider does not toll the statutory time in
which to appeal the underlying final order. See Stone, 514 U.S. at 405-06;
Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1258. Because Petitioner did not file a petition for
review of the BIA’s May 24, 2006, final order denying his motion to reopen, we do
not have jurisdiction to review anything other than the BIA’s denial of
reconsideration.
In a motion to reconsider, unlike a motion to reopen, the petitioner must
identify errors that the BIA made in its underlying decision. Matter of Cerna, 20
I&N Dec. 399, 402-03 (BIA 1991); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180-
81 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). These alleged errors are reviewed for an abuse of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discretion and will be reversed only if the BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or
contrary to law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, the only alleged errors that Petitioner raised in his motion for
reconsideration were that the BIA had incorrectly determined that Jingesh Mehta
was his true identity and that his case should be consolidated with his other
proceeding, in which he was using the name Jignesh Jariwala. In its
reconsideration order, the BIA found no errors in its prior determinations and held
that there were no grounds for reconsideration. Because we do not have
jurisdiction to review the merits of Petitioner’s underlying claims, and because we
find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion or otherwise act arbitrarily,
irrationally, or contrary to law when it denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, we deny the petition.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --