Yanely Alexandra Rivas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANELY ALEXANDRA RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71200
Agency Nos. A216-607-174
A216-607-175
A216-607-176
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yanely Alexandra Rivas 1 and her daughters, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
* 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).
1 Although petitioner’s name appears as “Yanely Alexandra Rivas” in
the Petition for Review and Answering Brief, it appears as “Yaneli Alexandra
Rivas” in the agency decisions and Notice to Appear, and both spellings appear in
the Opening Brief.
FILED
SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71200
order denying their 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 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where they failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.
2004) (“A petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in
the BIA’s prior decision.”).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s underlying dismissal order, we
lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it was issued on November 29,
2019, and petitioners did not file this petition for review until April 27, 2020.
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)).
Petitioners’ contentions that the agency violated their right to due process
fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71200
prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --