Vicente Garcia Miranda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE GARCIA MIRANDA, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73324
Agency Nos. A079-543-659
A079-543-660
A079-543-661
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Garcia Miranda, Maria Monica Garcia, and Julio Valentin Garcia
Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JUN 16 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 --

denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its October 3, 2012, order denying
petitioners’ successive motion to reconsider as number-barred. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(2) (“A party may file only one motion to reconsider any given
decision and may not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion
to reconsider.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s order of
December 5, 2011, denying their earlier motion to reconsider, because this petition
for review is untimely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Membreno v.
Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that their case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73324 2

-- 2 of 2 --