FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINIC LAGUER CABANES, No. 15-70790
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-119-733
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Dominic Laguer Cabanes, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and
*
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).
application for adjustment of status, and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen or
reconsider for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th
Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabanes’ motion.
Construed as a motion to reconsider, the motion failed to specify any error of fact
or law in the prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.8(d) (it is the alien’s burden to establish eligibility for relief). Construed as
a motion to reopen, the attached affidavit was not previously unavailable evidence
that could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the affidavit lacked the requisite financial information.
Cabanes’ contentions that the BIA did not consider or improperly evaluated
the evidence he submitted with his motion to reconsider are not supported by the
record.
To the extent Cabanes seeks review of the BIA’s July 21, 2014, order
dismissing his appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not
timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 15-70790
To the extent Cabanes challenges the underlying proceedings before the IJ,
including the denial of an additional continuance, we lack jurisdiction to review
these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Cabanes’ remaining
contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-70790