Case Name: David Rafael VELASCO-ALONZO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 171 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 04-73558
Parties: David Rafael VELASCO-ALONZO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
David Rafael VELASCO-ALONZO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73558.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
David Rafael Velasco-Alonzo, Los Angeles, 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, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Rafael Velasco-Alonzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
To the extent Velasco-Alonzo challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") February 25, 2004 decision, we lack jurisdiction to review his contentions because Velasco-Alonzo did not file a petition for review within thirty days of the BIA's decision and his motion to reconsider did not toll the filing deadline. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
We have jurisdiction to review VelascoAlonzo's remaining claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying VelascoAlonzo's motion to reconsider because Velasco-Alonzo did not establish that there were errors of fact or law in the BIA's February 25, 2004 decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (stating that motion to reconsider "shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and 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.