Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Carlos OCHOA CENDEJAS; Lucero Cardenas Garcia, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74543.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Juan Carlos Ochoa Cendejas, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Lucero Cardenas Garcia, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Ochoa Cendejas and Lucero Cardenas Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (a party may only file one motion to reconsider, which must be filed within 30 days of BIA’s decision).

To the extent Petitioners seek review of the BIA’s February 27, 2006 orders dismissing their appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.