Case ID: f-appx_316/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Marissa Cenon BALENTON, aka Maria Marissa Balenton Nanao, aka Marissa Balenton Nanao, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72835.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 4, 2009.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Marissa Cenon Balenton, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Balenton’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s January 24, 2006, 2006 WL 448276, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We are unpersuaded by Balenton’s contention that the BIA made impermissible factual findings in her case. See id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii).

To the extent Balenton challenges the BIA’s January 24, 2006 order dismissing her underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.