Case Name: Ricardo Lopez BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 344 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 07-71720
Parties: Ricardo Lopez BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
Ricardo Lopez BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71720.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009 .
Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
Ricardo Lopez Bravo, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet 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, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo Lopez Bravo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Lopez Bravo's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
To the extent Lopez Bravo challenges the BIA's December 28, 2006 order, we lack jurisdiction because the 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.