Rodriguez-Arellano, et al v. Holder, No. 06-75243 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 25 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS PABLO ANGEL RODRIGUEZARELLANO, No. 06-75243 Agency No. A075-736-742 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Pablo Angel Rodriguez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 BIA s denial of a motion to reconsider and review de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo legal and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 79192 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Arellano s motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA s prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Rodriguez-Arellano raises a due process challenge to the BIA s dismissal of his direct appeal, we lack jurisdiction because he failed to file a petition for review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 06-75243

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.