Case ID: f-appx_270/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leodegario Arroyo PENALOZA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 24, 2008.
    Leodegario Arroyo Penaloza, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    Kurt B. Larson, Stacy S. Paddack, Arthur L. Rabin, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leodegario Arroyo Penaloza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his second motion to reopen. Because Penaloza’s second motion to reopen did not include new facts to be proven at the reopened hearing and was not supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing the motion as one to reconsider and denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(1) & 1003.2(b)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 13, 2006, order which affirmed the I J’s denial of Penaloza’s application for cancellation of removal, because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also 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.