Jose Juan Sedeno-Arroyo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 JUAN SEDENO-ARROYO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71820
Agency No. A096-362-494
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2008**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Juan Sedeno-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71820 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 Sedeno-Arroyo’s motion to
reopen on the grounds that Sedeno-Arroyo failed to demonstrate that the evidence
he submitted with his motion “was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented” at his hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Goel
v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (evidence capable of
being discovered prior to the hearing cannot serve as the basis for a motion to
reopen).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sedeno-Arroyo’s contentions regarding
errors in the BIA’s January 23, 2008, order because he failed to raise these
contentions before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --