FRANCISCO RIOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72303 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO RIOS, No. 11-72303 Petitioner, Agency No. A074-438-052 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Francisco Rios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reconsider. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Rios motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision affirming the immigration judge's ( IJ ) order denying Rios application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture Act and under the Nicaragua and Central America Relief Act. 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). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying March 24, 2011 order, dismissing Rios appeal from the IJ's decision, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
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.
