Jose Luis Alberto-Canaca 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE LUIS ALBERTO-CANACA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70968
Agency No. A097-315-383
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Alberto-Canaca, a native and citizen of Honduras and a resident of
El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70968 2
motion to reconsider and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 Alberto-Canaca’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Alberto-Canaca makes to the
BIA’s underlying order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision, because this petition is not timely as to that order. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (BIA’s underlying order is final when
issued, irrespective of the filing of a reconsideration motion, and petitioner must
seek judicial review of the order within the specified period).
Finally, in light of the foregoing, Alberto-Canaca’s contention that the
agency violated his due process rights is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --