FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO CORZA CERVANTES; No. 09-70483
MARIA DEL CARMEN CORZA,
Agency Nos. A075-678-321
Petitioners, A075-678-322
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Corza Cervantes and Maria Del Carmen Corza, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Corza’s successive motion
to reconsider as number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (“A party may file
only one motion to reconsider any given decision and may not seek reconsideration
of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.”). It follows that
petitioners’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination regarding Corza Cervantes’
motion. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner
waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent petitioners contend they suffered ineffective assistance of
counsel, they did not raise this contention before the BIA and we therefore lack
jurisdiction to review this unexhausted claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted claim that
there is new evidence of hardship. See id.
2 09-70483
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
Petitioners’ request for a stay of removal is dismissed as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-70483