NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ARMANDO MORALES-MARAVILLA, Nos. 06-74374
06-75511
Petitioner,
Agency No. A091-757-762
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Armando Morales-Maravilla, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 15, 2006, order dismissing his appeals from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of
removal and his subsequent motion to reconsider, and the BIA’s November 21,
2006, 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, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). In
No. 06-74374, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review, and in
No. 06-75511, we deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision denying
Morales-Maravilla’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003).
Morales-Maravilla’s claim that the IJ violated due process by admitting
police reports from his 1998 domestic conviction fails because the reports were
probative, and their admission was not fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS,
45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of
evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its
admission is fundamentally fair”).
We reject Morales-Maravilla’s challenge to the BIA’s orders denying
reconsideration, because the motions failed to identify any error of fact or law in
RB/Research 2 06-75511
the underlying orders. 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).
Morales-Maravilla’s remaining contentions lack merit.
IN No. 06-74374: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part;
DENIED in part.
IN No. 06-75511: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
RB/Research 3 06-75511