Jose Erazo-rivas v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

  •                                                                            FILED
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 16 2010
                                                                            MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
     JOSE ANGEL ERAZO-RIVAS,                         No. 08-71072
                   Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-989-531
                                                     MEMORANDUM *
     ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
                           On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  Submitted April 5, 2010 **
    Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
            Jose Angel Erazo-Rivas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his
    motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
                 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).
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v.
    311 F.3d 960
    , 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
            The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing Erazo-Rivas’s motion,
    filed January 15, 2008, as a motion to reconsider. See Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    , 793 (9th Cir. 2005) (where a petitioner improperly titles a motion to
    reopen or reconsider, the BIA should construe the motion based on its underlying
    purpose). So construed, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Erazo-
    Rivas’s motion to reconsider as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Erazo-
    Rivas’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246
    (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
    IH/Research                                2                                   07-71072

Document Info

DocketNumber: 08-71072

Citation Numbers: 09-15202

Filed Date: 4/16/2010

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2014

Retrieved Date: 4/16/2010