Erik Raul Balcazar-Rivera 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ERIK RAUL BALCAZAR-RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70782
Agency No. A097-337-029
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Erik Raul Balcazar-Rivera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
JUL 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70782 2
Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion a dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i), Singh
v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss
in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Balcazar-
Rivera’s appeal where he failed to state specific grounds for appeal in his Notice of
Appeal and did not file a separate brief or statement. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361
F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004). Although Balcazar-Rivera alleges that he never
received the relevant briefing schedule, the record indicates that a schedule was
mailed to his most recent address of record.
To the extent Balcazar-Rivera challenges the BIA’s May 15, 2008, order
denying his motion to reconsider, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because
Balcazar-Rivera did not petition for review of that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft,
359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --