FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUSBEL ANTONIO MORENO, No. 11-72459
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-965-491
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rusbel Antonio Moreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
*
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).
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Moreno’s contention that his former counsel
was ineffective, because he did not exhaust this issue to the BIA. See Liu v.
Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 425-26 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring petitioner to exhaust
ineffective assistance of counsel claim through a motion to reopen before the BIA).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Moreno’s contentions regarding the
agency’s analysis of the merits of his claims, because Moreno did not file a petition
for review of the BIA’s March 10, 2011 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v.
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995) (the 30-day filing period for a petition for review
is mandatory and jurisdictional).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno’s motion to
reconsider because Moreno failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
March 10, 2011 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must
identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); see also Mohammed, 400 F.3d at
791 (the court reverses the denial of a motion to reconsider only if the BIA acted
“arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 11-72459