Case Name: Cruz Nolberto SUMETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 08-71995
Parties: Cruz Nolberto SUMETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 683–683

Head Matter:
Cruz Nolberto SUMETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71995.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
July 16, 2010.
Cruz Nolberto Sumeta, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Rosanne Perry, Trial, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer L. Light-body, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Cruz Nolberto Sumeta, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's January 23, 2008, order because Sumeta failed to timely petition this court for review of that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Sumeta's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's January 23, 2008, 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.