Case Name: Pedro LARA-URIETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-24
Citations: 553 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 12-72651
Parties: Pedro LARA-URIETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
Pedro LARA-URIETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72651.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
Brent Renison, Parrilli Renison, LLC, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Enitan Otunla, Trial, OIL, 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, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, 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
Pedro Lara-Urieta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lara-Urieta's motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the IJ's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara-Urieta's contention that his former attorneys provided ineffective assistance because Lara-Urieta failed to exhaust these claims before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) ("We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").
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.