Jose Marvin Aparicio-Barrera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARVIN APARICIO-BARRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71905
Agency No. A098-211-763
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Marvin Aparicio-Barrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reconsider the denial of his second motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
NOV 24 2015
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 --

motion to reconsider and we review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s February 23,
2012, decision denying Aparicio-Barrera’s second motion to reopen, because he
did not file a timely petition for review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30 day filing period
for petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aparicio-Barrera’s motion
to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791 (when
reviewing agency for abuse of discretion, court can “reverse only if the Board
acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject Aparicio-Barrera’s
contention that the BIA’s decision improperly stripped him of all Constitutional
protections. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
12-71905 2

-- 2 of 2 --