Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0949-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marco Stefan UNEPUTTY; Debby Engeline, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-74057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 22, 2011.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Remi Adalemo, Trial, Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Stefan Uneputty and Debby Engeline, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition 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 motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where the motion was untimely and petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s previous decision affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to grant petitioners’ motion to reconsider sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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.