Testo completo
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBA SUYAPA REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73632
Agency No. A072-518-766
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Alba Suyapa Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider.
* 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
MAY 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 15-73632
Mohammed v. 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 Reyes’s motion to
reconsider where she 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 Reyes claims that her right to due process was violated
because the agency considered her convictions in determining eligibility for relief,
we lack jurisdiction to consider the contention because she failed to raise it before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --