William Rivera v. Eric Holder, Jr.
This text of 552 F. App'x 774 (William Rivera v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
William Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera’s motion for reconsideration because Rivera failed to point to any error of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (describing the grounds on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen). We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to *775 the immigration judge’s decision. See Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
Finally, Rivera’s claim that his due process rights were violated fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
552 F. App'x 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-rivera-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.