FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MORENO-PINEDA, No. 09-73461
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-915-077
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Martin Moreno-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
*
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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Moreno-Pineda’s
motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of
removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006)
(explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in
motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided). Our
conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination forecloses
Moreno-Pineda’s contentions that the Board denied him due process by failing to
explain adequately its reasons for denying the motion to reopen, and that this court
cannot conduct a meaningful review of the agency’s legal reasoning. See id. at
603-04.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Pineda’s motion
to reconsider because the Board did not commit any errors of fact or law, including
when it determined the IJ’s decision reflected an awareness of the statutory and
discretionary standards and a familiarity with the record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 09-73461