Andres Mejia-Castillo v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 20-73716
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES DE JESUS MEJIA-CASTILLO; et No. 20-73716 al., Agency Nos. A209-835-409 Petitioners, A209-835-408 A209-838-699 v. A209-838-700

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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). 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 20-73716