Carlos Acevedo-Aguilar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS ACEVEDO-AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71949
Agency No. A095-122-927
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Acevedo-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
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 denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71949 2
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Acevedo-Aguilar’s motion
to reconsider where the motion did not establish any error of law or fact in the
BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We reject Acevedo-Aguilar’s
contention that the BIA blindly relied on a State Department report because it is
not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenges Acevedo-Aguilar makes to the
BIA’s underlying order denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, because this petition is
not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --