FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RIVERA, No. 12-70177
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-052-064
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
William Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion
for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
*
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).
of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.
2002), and de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera’s motion for
reconsideration because Rivera failed to point to any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing the grounds
on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen). We lack jurisdiction to consider
any challenge to the immigration judge’s decision. See Yepremyan v. Holder, 614
F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Finally, Rivera’s claim that his due process rights were violated fails. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and
prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70177