United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 26, 2010
372 Fed. Appx. 729 (9th Cir. 2010)

No. 07-73433.

Submitted March 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 26, 2010.

Mauricio Guolart Rosa, Deerfield Beach, FL, pro se.

Regan Hildebrand, Jennifer L. Light-body, Esquire, Edward E. Wiggers, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 Home-land Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A093-303-008.

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Mauricio Guolart Rosa, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo a claim of constitutional violation in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Rosa's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's April 26, 2007, order. 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). Rosa's due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's April 26, 2007, order dismissing Rosa's underlying appeal because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).