Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03487/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03487-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General United States of America
Respondent
Jose Gregorio Mendoza Merida
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3487

___________

JOSE GREGORIO MENDOZA MERIDA,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A091-670-446)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 22, 2016

Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 23, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 003112214061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
2

Pro se petitioner Jose Mendoza Merida (“Mendoza”) petitions for review of the 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration. 

We will deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

Mendoza is a citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States in 1988 without 

admission, and adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident in 1990. In 2012, he was 

convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Based on that conviction, the 

Department of Homeland Security charged him with being removable as an alien 

convicted of an aggravated felony and an alien convicted of a controlled-substance 

offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(B)(i). In 2013, an Immigration Judge 

(IJ) ordered Mendoza removed to Mexico. In 2015, Mendoza appealed to the BIA, 

which dismissed the appeal as untimely. 

Mendoza then filed a motion to reconsider in the BIA. He stated, vaguely, that he 

had not previously appealed “for too many reasons to count,” including because he had 

previously thought that he did not have a chance to remain in the country. A.R. at 8. He 

said that he had some issues that he wished to present to the BIA, and thus asked the BIA 

to reconsider its order dismissing his appeal. The BIA denied the motion, ruling that 

Mendoza had failed to identify any error in its initial decision. The BIA further explained

that, if Mendoza wished to reopen the case, he should file a motion with the IJ. Mendoza

then filed a timely petition for review to this Court. 

Case: 15-3487 Document: 003112214061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
3

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) to review the BIA’s denial of 

Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration, but lack jurisdiction to review the underlying 

removal order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Castro v. Att’y Gen., 671 

F.3d 356, 364 (3d Cir. 2012). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for 

abuse of discretion, and will disturb the BIA’s ruling “only if it was ‘arbitrary, irrational, 

or contrary to law.’” Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Guo 

v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004)). 

In Mendoza’s brief to this Court, he raises two arguments: (1) the IJ erred by 

failing to grant a continuance to allow him to obtain counsel; and (2) the IJ erred by 

failing to give him an opportunity to present defenses or seek a waiver of inadmissibility 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). However, Mendoza did not present either of these claims to 

the BIA. Therefore, Mendoza has failed to exhaust these claims, and we lack jurisdiction 

to review them. See § 1252(d)(1); Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 447-48 (3d

Cir. 2005). We will thus dismiss Mendoza’s petition for review to the extent that he 

raises these claims. 

Meanwhile, Mendoza has failed to argue that the BIA erred by denying his motion 

for reconsideration, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Khan v. Att’y 

Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 496 n.5 (3d Cir. 2012). Moreover, we note that a motion for 

reconsideration must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or 

law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. 

Case: 15-3487 Document: 003112214061 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
4

§ 1003.2(b)(1); see also Castro, 671 F.3d at 364. In its initial decision, the BIA correctly 

concluded that Mendoza had filed his notice of appeal well outside the 30-day deadline. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Mendoza’s 

motion for reconsideration did not identify any error in that decision. See generally

Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 003112214061 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2016