FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHENGMIN DU, No. 10-71452
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-037-547
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Chengmin Du, a native and citizen of China, 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, 311 F.3d
*
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).
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Du’s motion to reconsider
because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s October
20, 2009, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d
1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Du’s contention that the immigration judge
was biased because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 20, 2009, order because
this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 10-71452