From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lara-Urieta v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 21, 2014
553 F. App'x 711 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 12-72651 Agency No. A095-788-491

01-21-2014

PEDRO LARA-URIETA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Lara-Urieta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lara-Urieta's motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the IJ's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara-Urieta's contention that his former attorneys provided ineffective assistance because Lara-Urieta failed to exhaust these claims before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.


Summaries of

Lara-Urieta v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 21, 2014
553 F. App'x 711 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Lara-Urieta v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:PEDRO LARA-URIETA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 21, 2014

Citations

553 F. App'x 711 (9th Cir. 2014)