Case ID: f-appx_171/html/0088-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus CORTEZ SALDIVAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71812.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2006.
    
    Decided March 14, 2006.
    Jesus Cortez Saldivar, Pasadena, CA, pro se.
    Maria Guadalupe Cortez, Pasadena, 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, Christopher C. Fuller, William C. Minick, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Cortez Salvidar and Maria Guadalupe Cortez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s November 20, 2003 removal order and to the BIA’s orders denying their second and third motions to reopen, because Petitioners did not petition for review of those orders. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1258 (9th Cir.1996).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ first motion to reopen because the motion was not supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

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 provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.