Mario Rodriguez Curiel v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 507 F. App'x 749 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ No. 11-72232
CURIEL and NORMA SILVA
GONZALEZ, Agency Nos. A075-698-698
Agency Nos. A075-698-699
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alberto Rodriguez Curiel and Norma Silva Gonzalez, husband and
wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
*
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).
judge’s denial of their motion to reconsider, and denying their motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
prior order. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(2);1205.10(a)(3)(i)-(ii), 1245.10(a)(4).
Petitioners failed to challenge the BIA’s determination that their motion to
reopen was time- and number-barred, and therefore waived review of that issue.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasoning is not
supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen the proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,
633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72232