Case ID: f-appx_109/html/0904-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Eduardo MUNOZ-GUEVARA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70309.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
    
    Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
    Jose Eduardo Munoz-Guevara, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Carl H. Mcintyre, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Eduardo Munoz-Guevara, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying reconsideration of its summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We. review for an abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (stating that a motion to reconsider “shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority”).

We do not consider Petitioner’s arguments regarding the denial of his application for asylum and withholding because he did not file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s July 19, 2002 decision. See Narayan v. INS, 105 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir.1997) (order) (holding that an appeal to this Court must be filed within 30 days of the BIA’s decision).

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.