Case Name: Alexander PODOKSIK-EFIMOVICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-10
Citations: 153 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 04-71575
Parties: Alexander PODOKSIK-EFIMOVICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 153
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Alexander PODOKSIK-EFIMOVICH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71575.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided Nov. 10, 2005.
Alexander Podoksik-Efimovich, San Ysidro, CA pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Attorney, Larry P. Cote, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alexander Podoksik-Efimovich, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, 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.
To the extent petitioner challenges the substance of the BIA's October 1, 2003 order affirming the immigration judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction, because the petitioner did not file a timely petition for review of that order. See Marbinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1258 (9th Cir.1996).
The BIA acted within its discretion to find that Podoksik's letter to the BIA, which it properly construed as a motion for reconsideration, failed to identify any errors of law or fact that would justify granting relief. See Iturribarria, v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.