NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
BEATRIZ ELENA ESPINEL, No. 07-70552
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-163-123
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Beatriz Elena Espinel, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Espinel’s motion to reconsider
because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior
decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for
asylum. 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Espinel’s motion to reopen,
because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted and acted within its broad
discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening.
See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to
law.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Espinel’s IJ bias contention because she
failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 10, 2006, order,
dismissing Espinel’s direct appeal from the IJ’s decision, because this petition for
2
review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3