Ismael Lopez-Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL LOPEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72118
Agency No. A206-406-643
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Lopez-Lopez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72118
1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
To the extent Lopez-Lopez challenges the BIA’s underlying dismissal order,
we lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it was issued on April 5, 2019,
and Lopez-Lopez did not file this petition for review until August 21, 2019. See
Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petition for review must be
filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal . . . This
deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Lopez’s motion to
reconsider, where he did not allege error in the underlying BIA decision denying
his application for relief from removal and, as to his contention that his right to due
process was violated, he did not establish prejudice. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)
(motions to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order
and shall be supported by pertinent authority”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72118
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --