Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Teodulo PERALTA CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71214, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Teodulo Peralta Cuevas, El Monte, CA, Pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Earle B. Wilson, Esq., and Leslie McKay Fax, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Teodulo Peralta Cuevas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of his motion to reconsider an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal because petitioner failed to file a timely petition for review of that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of its summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision because petitioner failed to demonstrate an error of fact or law. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.