Cortes Parra v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Cortes Parra v. Gonzales

145 F. App'x 621

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketNo. 04-71678; Agency No. A75-475-976

StatusPublished

This text of 145 F. App'x 621 (Cortes Parra v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cortes Parra v. Gonzales, 145 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Felipe Cortes Parra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider its December 3, 2003 decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the agency’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the petitioner identified no error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior determination that the mere existence of two new qualifying relatives did not warrant the reopening of proceedings in which the BIA had denied cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. Accordingly, the BIA’s decision to deny reconsideration was well within its discretion and was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Felipe Cortes Parra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider its December 3, 2003 decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the agency’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the petitioner identified no error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior determination that the mere existence of two new qualifying relatives did not warrant the reopening of proceedings in which the BIA had denied cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. Accordingly, the BIA’s decision to deny reconsideration was well within its discretion and was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. App'x 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortes-parra-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack