Herodita Lopez; Jorge Alberto Rivera Lopez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERODITA LOPEZ;
JORGE ALBERTO RIVERA LOPEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72701
Agency Nos. A094-453-700
A200-817-395
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Herodita Lopez and Jorge Alberto Rivera Lopez, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72701
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider,
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention regarding Lopez’s
criminal convictions because they did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ 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); see also Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of
discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --