Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo Jimenez TREJO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71949.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Eduardo Jimenez Trejo, pro se, Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia L. Buchanan, Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Jimenez Trejo, a native and citizen of Mexico appearing pro se, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

Jimenez has waived any challenge to the order denying reconsideration by failing to address it in his opening brief to this court. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent Jimenez seeks review of the BIA’s February 27, 2002 order affirming an immigration judge’s decision that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider it, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See id. at 1258.

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA’s streamlining procedures violate due process is foreclosed by Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).

The remaining contentions lack merit.

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