Francisco Rios 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCISCO RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72303
Agency No. A074-438-052
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Rios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
MAY 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See
Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d
1105 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Rios’ motion to reconsider
because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior
decision affirming the immigration judge's (“IJ”) order denying Rios’ application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against
Torture Act and under the Nicaragua and Central America Relief Act. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001)
(en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying March 24, 2011 order,
dismissing Rios’ appeal from the IJ's decision, because the petition for review is
not timely as to that 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 --