The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 24, 2010.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A094-316-781.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Fredy Antonio Espinoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to re-open removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Espinoza's motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was material and previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Espinoza's challenge to the adverse credibility finding contained in the agency's prior orders because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).