BENIGNO SANDOVAL-MADRIGAL, AKA Jesus Osequerra v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENIGNO SANDOVAL-MADRIGAL,
AKA Jesus Osequerra,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74107
Agency No. A079-630-352
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Benigno Sandoval-Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal,
which was treated as a motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 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
AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74107
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval-Madrigal’s motion
to reconsider the agency’s denial of adjustment of status as untimely, where it was
filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s 2011 order became final. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of entry of a
final order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i) (an order of removal becomes
final when the BIA affirms the order); Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir.
2011) (a BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding solely for
voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --