Julia Rincon-De Picciotto v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIA RINCON-DE PICCIOTTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-71605
08-73298
Agency No. A077-270-811
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Julia Rincon-De Picciotto, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal, and denying her
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73298/08-73298 2
motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, and for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process by pretermitting Picciotto’s
application for cancellation of removal where she lacked seven years of continuous
residence in the United States after being “admitted in any status.” See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show
error and prejudice to establish a due process violation); see also Vasquez de
Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (filing an application for
adjustment of status does not confer admission); Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d
1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011) (a grant of work authorization does not confer
admission).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Picciotto’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any material error of fact or law in
the BIA’s prior decision affirming the IJ’s order pretermitting Picciotto’s
application for cancellation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --