Case Name: Luis Carlos CEBALLOS-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: No. 15-70460
Parties: Luis Carlos CEBALLOS-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
Luis Carlos CEBALLOS-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70460
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 3, 2016
Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, OIL, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, 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
Luis Carlos Ceballos-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek administrative closure. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Ceballos-Ramirez's motion to reconsider its underlying discretionary decision regarding administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure for lack of a sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (limiting the court's jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider its underling discretionary determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.