Case ID: f-appx_225/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Saribek SARKISYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007 .
    Filed March 15, 2007.
    
      Saribek Sarkisyan, Valencia, CA, pro se.
    Boris Baladjanian, Valencia, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq., John M. Mcadams, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Saribek Sarkisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its order dismissing as untimely Sarkisyan’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 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), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo due process challenges, Marbinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Sarkisyan’s motion to reconsider because the motion did not identify any errors of fact or law in the BIA’s October 5, 2004, order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1230 n. 5 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Sarkisyan’s due process challenge to the denial of the motion is not colorable. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge ... [a petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”).

To the extent Sarkisyan contends the BIA violated due process by dismissing his appeal as untimely, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.