Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Angel ERAZO-RIVAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 16, 2010.
    Jose Angel Erazo-Rivas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Julie M. Iversen, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Angel Erazo-Rivas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing Erazo-Rivas’s motion, filed January 15, 2008, as a motion to reconsider. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.2005) (where a petitioner improperly titles a motion to reopen or reconsider, the BIA should construe the motion based on its underlying purpose). So construed, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Erazo-Rivas’s motion to reconsider as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Erazo-Rivas’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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