Nos. 08-72307, 08-73809.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 1, 2010.
Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Esquire, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A072-991-445.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Emiliano Mendez-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia, and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa's motion to re-open where the Order to Show Cause showed it had been personally served on Mendez-Ochoa and contained notice of his next scheduled hearing in both Spanish and English. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Ochoa's motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the agency's prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Mendez-Ochoa's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.