Jose Manuel Rodriguez Victor; Aide Osegueda Gutierrez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ VICTOR;
AIDE OSEGUEDA GUTIERREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73520
Agency Nos. A096-052-378
A077-600-002
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Rodriguez Victor and Aide Osegueda Gutierrez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73520 2
applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo
claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243
F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision affirming the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889
(9th Cir. 2003) (“[c]ancellation of removal ... is based on statutory predicates that
must first be met”).
We reject petitioners’ contention that their equal protection and due process
rights were violated because they should have been allowed to apply for
suspension of deportation. See Ram, 243 F.3d at 517 (“Line-drawing decisions
made by Congress or the President in the context of immigration must be upheld if
they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.”); Ramirez-Zavala
v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 872, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding petitioner ineligible to
apply for suspension of deportation where removal proceedings commenced after
April 1, 1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --