Case Name: Jairo Alexander RAMIREZ-CARMENDEZ, a.k.a. Man Little, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 489 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 09-73946
Parties: Jairo Alexander RAMIREZ-CARMENDEZ, a.k.a. Man Little, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
Jairo Alexander RAMIREZ-CARMENDEZ, a.k.a. Man Little, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Michelle Gonzalez, Inc., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Aric Allan Anderson, Nehal Kamani, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jairo Alexander Ramirez-Carmendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA's prior decision denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Carmendez's motion to reconsider where he did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's prior decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(2)-(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's July 24, 2007, underlying order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security's direct appeal from the immigration judge's decision because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 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.