Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose De Jesus Gallegos VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72182.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose De Jesus Gallegos Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order dismissing Petitioner’s appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the BIA correctly construed the motion according to its underlying purpose. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 792-93.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.