MARTIN FONSECA ROJAS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72246 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 29 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTIN RAFAEL FONSECA ROJAS; NANCY E. FONSECA, No. 11-72246 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A099-740-272 A099-740-273 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Martin Rafael Fonseca Rojas and Nancy E. Fonseca, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to * 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). reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (The BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-72246

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.