Case ID: f-appx_337/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo Medina ESPINOZA; Carmen Medina, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76871.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 6, 2009.
    
    Filed July 14, 2009.
    W. Crystal Lane, Santa Ana, CA, Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Eduardo Medina Espinoza, pro se.
    District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kristin Edison, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United Slates District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Medina Espinoza and Carmen Medina (“the Medinas”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their application for cancellation of removal and denial of their motion to reopen. We dismiss in part and deny in part.

(1) The Medinas’ petition for review of the denial of cancellation of removal was filed more than thirty days after the BIA’s decision and is, therefore, untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Thus, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 948 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

(2) The Medinas also petition for review of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). However, no new and material evidence was presented with that motion. Therefore, we deny the petition because the BIA did not err when it denied reopening. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.2005).

Petition DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).