Andres De Jesus Mejia-Castillo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRES DE JESUS MEJIA-CASTILLO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73716
Agency Nos. A209-835-409
A209-835-408
A209-838-699
A209-838-700
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Andres De Jesus Mejia-Castillo and three family members, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
* 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
MAR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-73716
motion to reconsider. 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 petitioners’ motion to
reconsider where they failed to identify any error of law or fact in the prior
decision. See 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.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (same).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the BIA’s August 31,
2020, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum and related relief because petitioners did not
file a petition for review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (time limit for filing a petition
for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --