Juwen Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUWEN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73715
Agency No. A097-857-951
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juwen Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) November 10, 2011, order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
FILED
MAY 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
In his motion to reconsider, Lin requested de novo consideration of his
direct appeal because the brief he filed “likely” was the result of an “unscrupulous
preparer.” The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to
reconsider because Lin failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior
order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791 (the court
reverses the denial of a motion to reconsider only if the BIA acted “arbitrarily,
irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA failed to
address his argument related to the preparation of his brief on appeal.
We lack jurisdiction to address Lin’s contentions related to the BIA’s March
31, 2011, decision denying his appeal because the petition for review is untimely
as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06
(1995) (the 30-day filing period for a petition for review is mandatory and
jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-73715 2

-- 2 of 2 --