Loomba v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Loomba v. Holder

389 F. App'x 734

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2010

Docket07-71632

StatusUnpublished

This text of 389 F. App'x 734 (Loomba v. Holder) 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

Loomba v. Holder, 389 F. App'x 734 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Albert Repelita Mambou, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambou’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s October 13, 2007, order dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (purpose of a motion to reconsider is “to demonstrate that the IJ or the BIA erred as a matter of law or fact.”).

To the extent Mambou challenges the BIA’s October 30, 2007, order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his withholding of removal application, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Albert Repelita Mambou, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambou’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s October 13, 2007, order dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (purpose of a motion to reconsider is “to demonstrate that the IJ or the BIA erred as a matter of law or fact.”).

To the extent Mambou challenges the BIA’s October 30, 2007, order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his withholding of removal application, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 F. App'x 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loomba-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack