Case Name: CHENGMIN DU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-27
Citations: 440 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 10-71452
Parties: CHENGMIN DU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
CHENGMIN DU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71452.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 27, 2011.
Chengmin Du, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Kristin A. Moresi, OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, DOJ-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 CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Chengmin Du, a native and citizen of China, 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Du's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's October 20, 2009, order. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Du's contention that the immigration judge was biased because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's October 20, 2009, order 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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.