Julio Cesar Alfaro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIO CESAR ALFARO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70236
Agency No. A098-981-194
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70236 2
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
In his motion to reconsider, Alfaro challenged the agency’s findings related
to the ability of the government of El Salvador to protect him. The BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying Alfaro’s motion because Alfaro failed to identify
any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(b)(1);
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (German police took
reports and investigated incidents, but were unable to solve the crimes); Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005) (to prove government
acquiescence, applicant must show the government is aware of tortuous activity but
does nothing to intervene).
We reject Alfaro’s contentions that the BIA violated his due process rights.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice
to prevail on a due process claim). We also reject Alfaro’s contentions that the
BIA used the wrong standard or that its analysis was incomplete. Finally, we lack
jurisdiction to consider new arguments Alfaro did not raise to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --