Eddin Julio Tumax-Tuy v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIN JULIO TUMAX-TUY,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71637
Agency No. A088-642-045
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Eddin Julio Tumax-Tuy, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS,
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-71637
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
To the extent Tumax-Tuy seeks prosecutorial discretion before this court, we
lack jurisdiction to consider such a request. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d
642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Tumax-Tuy’s challenges to the BIA’s
December 28, 2011, order dismissing his direct appeal because he did not timely
file a petition for review of that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)
(deadline for filing a petition for review from a final order of removal is
“mandatory and jurisdictional”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tumax-Tuy’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s May 4, 2012, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --