Claudio Juarez-Mendez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CLAUDIO JUAREZ-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-71112
Agency No. A039-807-218
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Claudio Juarez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-71112 2
1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Mendez’s motion to
reopen where he offered no new material evidence in support of the motion, see 8
U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(1), and where Juarez-Mendez departed the United States after
relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), was
previously denied by the BIA in the exercise of discretion, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.44(d), (k); see also Avila-Sanchez, 509 F.3d at 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2007).
To the extent Juarez-Mendez challenges the BIA’s May 28, 1997, order
sustaining the government’s appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --