ADELA IMELDA NAJA and FRANCISCO NAJA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ADELA IMELDA NAJA and
FRANCISCO NAJA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73637
Agency Nos. A098-450-871
A098-450-872
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.
Adela Imelda Naja and her husband, Francisco Naja, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reconsider and dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73637 2
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 claims of constitutional violations in
immigration proceedings. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’
motion to reconsider because the motion was filed nearly two months after the BIA
issued its final decision on April 27, 2009. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by not giving them an
opportunity to rebut the BIA’s hardship determination on remand is unavailing.
Remand is not the venue to challenge the BIA’s final order denying relief and
petitioners did not seek reopening. Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898, 904, n.1 (9th Cir.
2011).
To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA engaged in impermissible
fact-finding in its April 27, 2009, order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition
for review is not timely as to the BIA’s prior order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --